Ex Parte Wang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2010

10162701 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P Alexandria, 0 Box 1450 Virginia 22313- 1450
www uspto gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE I FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
98804 7590 11/19/2010
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box 488
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Xin Wang 10-537-US (cg290100) 6475
EXAMINER
AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
11/19/2010 ELECTRONIC
ptoipinbox @reedsmith.com
mskaufman @reedsmith.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte XIN WANG,
THANH TA,
GUILLEMO LAO, and
EDDIE J. CHEN
Appeal 2009-01 1700
Application 1011 62,70 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 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 2009-01 1700
Application 1011 62,70 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on rehearing in Appeal 2009-01 1700. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002). Requests for Rehearing are limited to matters
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering the original decision.
37 C.F.R. 5 41.52 (2007).
ISSUES ON REHEARING
Appellants raise an issue that relates to the construction of claim 1. The
Appellants argue the panel should have been constrained to construe claim 1
according to a definition of meta-rights in the specification.
ANALYSIS
In our decision, we found that claims 1-18 and 28-29 were anticipated by the
applied art. Decision 8.
The Appellants argue that Downs describes usage rights, and such rights are
not meta-rights as in the claims. Request 2-3. The Specification states that
"[mleta-rights can be thought of as usage rights to usage rights." Specification ¶
28. The Specification therefore contradicts the Appellants' contention and is
consistent with the panel's construction.
The Appellants also seek to put additional evidence in the form of related
Board decisions before the panel for consideration. Such evidence is not timely
entered at this stage. 37 C.F.R. 5 41.33 (2007).
CONCLUSION
Nothing in Appellants' request has convinced us that we have improperly
construed claim 1 as argued by the Appellants. Accordingly, we deny the request.
Appeal 2009-01 1700
Application 1011 62,70 1
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
We have considered the REQUEST FOR REHEARING
We DENY the request that we reverse the Examiner as to claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Ej 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Ej 1.136(a)(l)(iv)
(2007).
REHEARING DENIED
mev
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box 488
Pittsburgh PA 15230