Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2019002980 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2020)

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.
15/265,877 09/15/2016 Benny Pesach P24045USC2/1020-1079.3 9912
123590 7590 12/18/2020
KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD.
P.O. BOX 57651
TEL AVIV, 61576
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 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):
INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL
alon@dkpat.co.il
daniel@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENNY PESACH and ZAFRIR MOR
Appeal 2019-002980
Application 15/265,877
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing (“Request”) under 37 C.F.R.
§ 47.52(a)(1) of our Decision on Appeal mailed October 7, 2020
(“Decision”). The Decision:
affirmed the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4, 7–15, and
18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and
affirmed the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reconsider our decision in light of Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing.
Appeal 2019-002980
Application 15/265,877

2
In the Request for Rehearing, Appellant contends, and we agree based
on further review of the record, that the record contains insufficient
explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify Gronenborn in the manner required to arrive at the
claimed invention. Request 2–3. Appellant made this argument, although in
a cursory manner, in the Appeal Brief at page 7.
For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 12. For the same
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the pending
dependent claims, which depend from either claim 1 or 12.

CONCLUSION
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s Request.
We now REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–5, 7–16, and 18–20.
In summary:
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Denied Granted
1–4, 7–15, 18–
20
103 Gronenborn 1–4, 7–15, 18–20
5, 16 103 Gronenborn,
Iwasa 5, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–16, 18–
20

Appeal 2019-002980
Application 15/265,877

3
Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–15, 18–
20
103 Gronenborn 1–4, 7–15, 18–20
5, 16 103 Gronenborn,
Iwasa 5, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–16, 18–
20

DECISION
Appellant’s request for rehearing is granted.

GRANTED