90009315 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

Ex Parte 6247011 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 7, 2012

90009315 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 90/009,295 11/14/2008 6247011 DN 5317 37420 7590 12/07/2012 VISTA PRINT USA, INC. ATTN: PATENT COUNSEL 95 HAYDEN AVENUE LEXINGTON, MA 02421 EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/07/2012 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 TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 90/009,315 02/11/2009 6247011 1117-0010001 1771 37420 7590 12/07/2012 VISTA PRINT USA, INC. ATTN: PATENT COUNSEL 95 HAYDEN AVENUE LEXINGTON, MA 02421 EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/07/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VISTAPRINT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner ____________ Appeal 2012-002898 Reexamination Control 90/009,295 & 90/009,315 Patent 6,247,011 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING In papers filed September 12, 2012, Appellant requests a rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(2) from the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “Decision”), dated July 17, 2012. In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants allege that the Board erred by misapprehending or overlooking Appellants’ arguments previously raised in the Briefs. (Req. Reh’g. 1-8). In particular, Appellants allege that “the Board decision failed to address” Appellant’s “arguments as to why the proposed combination of Appeal 2012-002898 Application 90/009,295 & 90/009,315 2 Corel Whitepaper and Furman failed to raise a prima facie case of obviousness” (Req. Reh’g 1). Appellant appears to provide similar arguments as were previously provided in Appellant’s brief and addressed in the Decision. Namely, Appellant states that in Furman, “the client uses a format that differs from the format that the network operating system uses” (Req. Reh’g 2), that Corel discloses “a single format system” (Req. Reh’g 2), and that one of skill in the art “would have had no reason to combine the Corel Whitepaper with Furman’s . . . translator” (Req. Reh’g 3). We disagree with Appellant for the reasons previously set forth in the Decision (see, e.g., Decision 5-7). Appellant also argues that “Corel Whitepaper’s Java-coded document is a PDL document” (Req. Reh’g 3), which was also previously argued (App. Br. 8) and addressed in the Decision (see, e.g., Decision 7-8). In reaching our decision, we fully considered the arguments raised by Appellant but were simply unpersuaded that they demonstrated error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. While Appellant now reiterates previously presented arguments, Appellant does not point out any specific points that were misapprehended or overlooked in the Decision. We therefore are not persuaded that the points Appellant previously provided were misapprehended or overlooked. CONCLUSION Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appeal 2012-002898 Application 90/009,295 & 90/009,315 3 has misapprehended or overlooked any point of fact or law. We therefore decline to modify our original Decision entered July 17, 2012. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). REHEARING DENIED Appeal 2012-002898 Application 90/009,295 & 90/009,315 4 THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENT J. SIEFFERT SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A. 1625 RADIO DRIVE, SUITE 300 WOODBURY, MN 55125 cu