13622994 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

Craig Schulz

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 31, 2019

13622994 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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. 13/622,994 09/19/2012 Craig Schulz 1351.1000 3628 35236 7590 10/31/2019 The Culbertson Group, P.C. 2210 Western Trails Blvd., Unit 104 Austin, TX 78745 EXAMINER WEISENFELD, ARYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2019 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): docket@tcg-ipl.com rculbertson2@gmail.com rculbertson@tcg-ipl.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CRAIG SCHULZ ____________ Appeal 2018-003122 Application 13/622,994 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON SECOND REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is a decision on Appellant’s Second Request for Rehearing (“Second Request”).1 Appellant’s Second Request is filed under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) in response to our Decision on Request for Rehearing of July 30, 2019 (“Decision”), which is deemed to incorporate our original Decision of May 2, 2019 (“Original Decision”), wherein, inter alia, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–17, and 1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appeal 2018-003122 Application 13/622,994 2 20–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 In its Second Request, Appellant requests that we reconsider our Decision. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s comments in the Second Request, and have found no errors. Appellant’s request is denied. DISCUSSION A Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), Appellant argues the Board misapprehended or overlooked the nature of the disclosure of Holden, and, thus, erred in affirming the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Holden and Xu teaches or suggests “receiving a respective damage severity level input from the user device for each of the grid segments encompassing damage,” as recited in claim 1. See Second Request 3–6. However, Appellant merely reiterates arguments already made in its Appeal Brief at pages 16–17 and in its First Request for Rehearing (“First Request”) at pages 4–5, which were considered and deemed not persuasive. More specifically, we considered Appellant’s argument that Holden discloses a specific way to utilize grid segments to determine damage repair estimates, and does not broadly disclose “[identifying a damage severity level] for each of the grid segments encompassing damage.” See Second Request 3–5 (emphasis omitted). We disagreed with Appellant’s characterization of Holden’s disclosure, and, thus, we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Holden and Xu teaches or 2 “The decision on the request for rehearing is deemed to incorporate the earlier opinion reflecting its decision for appeal, except for those portions specifically withdrawn on rehearing.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appeal 2018-003122 Application 13/622,994 3 suggests “receiving a respective damage severity level input from the user device for each of the grid segments encompassing damage,” as recited in claim 1. See Decision 6–7; see also Original Decision 17–18. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not identify “points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Therefore, this portion of Appellant’s request is denied. B Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), Appellant also argues the Board misapprehended or overlooked the point that the claimed “predefined damage severity indicators,” recited in claim 1, do not meet the threshold requirement for material to be considered non-functional descriptive material. See Second Request 7–9. However, Appellant again merely reiterates arguments already made in its Appeal Brief at pages 18–19 and in its First Request at pages 9–11, which we considered and deemed not persuasive. More specifically, we considered Appellant’s argument that the claimed “predefined damage severity indicators” are functionally related to the claimed process because these indicators are used to make the damage severity level inputs. See Second Request 7. Again, we disagreed with Appellant’s argument because we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed “predefined damage severity indicators” recite the display and appearance of the input data, and, thus, do not change the functional steps of the claim language. See Decision 7; see also Original Decision 19. Appeal 2018-003122 Application 13/622,994 4 Again, Appellant’s argument does not identify “points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Therefore, this portion of Appellant’s request is also denied. DECISION Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we deny Appellant’s request to make any changes in our Decision. We determine Appellant has not identified any points the Board has misapprehended or overlooked. The request for rehearing is denied. Summary of Original Decision: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, 20– 23 101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, 20– 23 1, 2, 4–6, 8– 13, 15–18, 20–23 103(a) Holden, Xu 1, 2, 4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–17, 20– 23 5, 12, 18 3 103(a) Holden, Xu, Edmunds 3 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15– 17, 20–23 5, 12, 18 Appeal 2018-003122 Application 13/622,994 5 Final Outcome of Appeal after Second Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, 20– 23 101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, 20– 23 1, 2, 4–6, 8– 13, 15–18, 20–23 103(a) Holden, Xu 1, 2, 4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–17, 20– 23 5, 12, 18 3 103(a) Holden, Xu, Edmunds 3 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15– 17, 20–23 5, 12, 18 DENIED