Ex Parte 7292151 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

95000540 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

NINTENDO CO., LTD
Requester and Appellant

v.

MOTIVA, LLC.
Patent Owner and Respondent
____________

Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,1511
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The patent involved in this reexamination proceeding appeal (the “‘151
Patent”) issued to Ferguson et al. on November 6, 2007.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Summary
Third-Party Requester Nintendo Co., Ltd. (“Nintendo”) appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision not to adopt any of
the rejections that were proposed in connection with claims 12-16, 21-25,
27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84.2&3 Patent Owner Motiva, LLC
(“Motiva”)4 urges that the Examiner’s decision must be affirmed.5 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a).
This appeal involves three separate proposed rejections based on
anticipation. We affirm the Examiner’s decision not to adopt two of those
rejections. We reverse the Examiner’s decision not to adopt a third

2 See Nintendo’s “Requester’s Appeal Brief” filed May 16, 2011 (“App.
Br.”) and “Requester’s Rebuttal Brief” filed September 6, 2011 (“Reb. Br.”)

3 Nintendo indicates that claims 37, 79, and 80, although confirmed, are not
on appeal. (App. Br., p. 3.) We observe that in the Right of Appeal Notice
mailed February 14, 2011 (“RAN”), the Examiner indicated that claims 1-
11, 17-20, 26, 35, 36, 38-43, 45-56, 58-64, 66, 67, 69-72, 77, 78, 82, 83, and
85-91 have been “withdrawn from consideration.” (RAN, p. 2.) Review of
the record reveals that none of the claims stated as being on appeal are
independent claims.

4 See Patent Assignment Abstract of Title, Reel 021805 Frame 0029 which
was entered into the record of this proceeding as “Title Report” on March
17, 2010.

5 See Motiva’s “Respondent’s Brief” filed June 15, 2011 (“Resp. Br.”). We
observe that Motiva expresses agreement with Nintendo’s statement of the
status of the claims. (Resp. Br., p. 3.)

Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

3
rejection. In summary, we conclude that all of claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34,
44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84 should have been rejected based on the
record before us. We enter new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b).
The Invention
The ‘151 Patent summarizes its disclosed invention as follows (‘151
Patent, Abstract):
A system for measuring the position of transponders for testing and
training a user to manipulate the position of the transponders while
being guides by interactive and sensory feedback through a
bidirectional communication link to a processing system for the
purpose of functional movement assessment for exercise and physical
rehabilitation.

Claim 16, which depends on claim 1, is representative of the appealed
subject matter. Claims 1 and 16 are reproduced below6 (App. Br., pp. 43
and 44, Claims App’x.):
1. A system for tracking movement of a user, comprising:

a first communication device comprising a transmitter for
transmitting signals, a receiver for receiving signals and an output
device, said first communication device adapted to be hand-held;

a processing system, remote from the first communication
device, for wirelessly receiving said transmitted signals from said first
communication device, said processing system adapted to determine
movement information for said first communication device and
sending data signals to said first communication device for providing
feedback or control data; and

6 Claim 1 has been reproduced with indentations in a manner which
complies with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i).
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

4

wherein said first communication device receives and processes
said data signals from said processing system and wherein the output
device provides sensory stimuli according to the received data signals.

16. A system according to claim 1, wherein said first
communication device is adapted to accept various mechanical
extensions pieces depending on the application desired.

The Involved Prior Art
French et al. (“French”) 6,749,432 Jun. 15, 2004

Hinckley, Ken, “Synchronous Gestures for Multiple Person and Computers.”
Volume 5, Issue 2, pp. 149-158 of the UIST 2003 Symposium on User
Interface Software & Technology. (“Hinckley”)

Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application 2000-308756 published November
7, 2000 to inventor Koichiro Okamoto. (“Okamoto”)7

The Involved Rejections
The following rejections were proposed by Nintendo but not adopted
by the Examiner:
The rejection of claims 16 and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Okamoto.
The rejection of claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81,
and 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hinckley;
The rejection of claims 16, 27-34, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by French.

7 Reference in this opinion to page and paragraph numbers are to the English
translation of the Japanese document which is of record.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

5
B. ISSUES
1. Does Okamoto lack disclosure of a first communication device
which is “adapted to accept various mechanical extensions pieces” as
required by claims 16 and 68, such that the Examiner was correct in
declining to adopt the proposed rejection of those claims as anticipated by
Okamoto?
2. Does the record suitably establish that claims 16 and 68 would
have been obvious based on Okamoto?
3. Did the Examiner correctly decline to reject claims 12-16, 21-
25, 27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84 as anticipated by Hinckley?
4. Did the Examiner correctly decline to reject claims 16, 27-34,
and 44 as anticipated by French?
C. ANALYSIS
The Examiner refused to enter anticipation rejections involving each
of Okamoto, Hinckley, and French, proposed by Nintendo.
THE PROPOSED REJECTION BASED ON OKAMOTO
The Examiner declined to reject claims 16 and 68 as anticipated by
Okamoto. Those claims are dependent, respectively, on claim 1 and claim
50. Claim 1 is directed to a system for tracking movement of a user and
includes recitation of a first communication device. Claim 50 is directed to
an apparatus for use in tracking movement of a user. Claims 16 and 68 are
reproduced below (App. Br., pp. 44, 48, Claims App’x.):
16. A system according to claim 1, wherein said first
communication device is adapted to accept various mechanical
extensions pieces depending on the application desired.

Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

6
68. An apparatus according to claim 50, wherein said apparatus is
adapted to accept various mechanical extensions pieces depending on
the application desired.

Okamoto’s invention is directed to an input controller of a game
device that enables a player to influence game content via motions such as
shaking. (Okamoto, Title, Abstract.) Example configurations of the
controller include a “sword,” “fishing rod,” and “magic wand.” (Id. at p. 7,
¶0025.) An embodiment depicting a sword is shown in Okamoto’s Figure 4.
The question before us is whether Okamoto’s description and
illustration of a controller formed, for instance, as a sword, itself conveys
that the controller is “adapted to accept various mechanical extensions
pieces.” That is the only feature of claims 16 and 68 that is in dispute.
Having reviewed the record, we share Nintendo’s view (App. Br., pp.
11-14) that the Examiner’s reasoning for refusing to adopt the rejection
proposed is predicated on an inaccurate underlying assumption. The
Examiner’s position that Okamoto’s Figure 4 illustrates only a virtual
controller and not an actual controller (Action Closing Prosecution
(“ACP”)8, pp. 19, 21) is clearly contradicted by Okamoto’s plain disclosure.
The bottom portion of Figure 4 includes real-world controller “A1” and is
set forth in Okamoto as being in the hand of a “player” (Okamoto, p. 11.)
We, however, are not in agreement with Nintendo that one with
ordinary skill in the art would necessarily “understand” or “recognize” from
Okamoto’s disclosure that the sword shown in Figure 4 constitutes a

8 The Examiner’s Answer incorporates by reference the Right of Appeal
Notice which in turn incorporates by reference the ACP. This opinion
makes reference to the statements of the Examiner expressed in the ACP.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

7
mechanical extension piece that may be removed from a base portion which
may then be fitted with other extension pieces. (App. Br., p. 14; Reb. Br., p.
3.) In that circumstance, according to Nintendo, the base portion is thus
adapted to accept various mechanical extension pieces. It is simply unclear
that Okamoto itself conveys anything more with respect to controllers then
separate, distinct controllers which may be configured to appear generically
as a bar-like body (as in Okamoto’s Figure 3) or some other shape, for
example, a sword (as in Figure 4), fishing pole, or magic wand (id. at p. 7,
¶0025.) As separate controllers, none of them would necessarily be
“adapted to accept various mechanical extensions pieces” as required by
claims 16 and 68.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and every
element of a claim, arranged as recited in the claims, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because it is not evident that the
controllers depicted and described in Okamoto are configured or arranged as
required by claims 16 and 68, we do not discern that the Examiner was
incorrect in declining to reject those claims as anticipated by Okamoto.
However, even if Okamoto does not convey that its controllers are
“adapted” in the manner set forth in claims 16 and 68, it would have been
readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that there are a limited
number of options for obtaining the controllers which are disclosed in that
reference. Indeed, there are seemingly only two viable options. Either the
various types of controllers, e.g., a sword and a fishing pole, are (1) formed
as separate devices; or (2) constructed from a single such controller capable
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

8
of reconfiguration into the particular desired controller form by attachment
and detachment of components having the pertinent aesthetic. Where, as
here, there are a limited number of identified and predictable solutions to a
particular problem, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to
pursue the available options within his technical grasp. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In our view, a skilled artisan guided
by the content of Okamoto’s disclosure, including the desirability of
controllers having different shapes, would have reasonably appreciated that
forming a controller such that it is adapted to receive various mechanical
extension pieces was an available and viable option.
In light of the record before us, we conclude that Motiva’s claims 16
and 68 would have been obvious. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b), we enter a rejection of claims 16 and 68 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Okamoto for the above-discussed reasons.
THE PROPOSED REJECTION BASED ON HINCKLEY
Hinckley is an article titled “Synchronous Gestures for Multiple
Persons and Computers.” Hinckley describes techniques for conveying
information between tablet computers. (Hinckley, Abstract.) Nintendo
proposed rejecting each of claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76,
81, and 84 as anticipated by Hinckley. The Examiner refused to adopt the
proposed rejection. The Examiner’s reasoning for that refusal is reproduced
below (ACP, p. 35) (emphasis in original):
Regarding claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34, and 44, contrary to
3PR’s assertions on pages 451-455 of 3PR Request, Hinckley does
not disclose all of the elements and limitations recited in claim 1 on
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

9
which these claims depend. Therefore, the proposed rejections are not
adopted.
Hinckley discloses two identical tablet computers, not a hand-
held first communication device and a remote processing system as
recited in the claims. Furthermore, contrary to 3PR’s assertion on
page 453 of 3PR Request, one tablet does not determine movement
information for the other tablet. Rather, each tablet includes its own
accelerometer and determines its own accelerometer information.
Regarding claims 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84, contrary to
3PR’s assertions on pages 492-496 of 3PR Request, Hinckley does
not disclose all of the elements and limitations recited in claim 50 on
which these claims depend. Therefore, the proposed rejections are not
adopted.
Hinckley discloses two identical tablet computers, not a hand-
held apparatus and a remote processing system as recited in the
claims. Furthermore, contrary to 3PR’s assertion on page 495 of 3PR
Request, one tablet does not determine movement information for the
other tablet. Rather, each tablet includes its own accelerometer and
determines its own accelerometer information.

Thus, the Examiner takes two positions with respect to alleged
deficiencies in Hinckley. First, the Examiner is of the view that the tablet
computers disclosed in Hinckley cannot constitute the hand-held
communication device/apparatus and remote processing system called for in
Motiva’s claims. We do not discern, however, just what distinction the
Examiner is drawing between Hinckley’s computer tablets and the
components in the claims. Second, the Examiner also submits that the
proposed rejection is deficient because one tablet computer does not
“determine movement information” for the other tablet. That is a
requirement of each of claims 1 and 50, on which all of the above-noted
claims ultimately depend.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

10
Motiva offers additional analysis in support of the Examiner’s above-
noted positions. In connection with the Examiner’s first position, Motiva
urges that Hinckley does not disclose a processing system which is
“remote.” (Resp. Br., pp. 8-9.) Motiva’s apparent reasoning in that regard is
that the exchange of information between Hinckley’s tablets is accomplished
through a process in which the tablets are “bumped” together. (Id. at p. 9, ll.
1-2.)
We reject Motiva’s argument. It is simply not apparent why
“bumping” together two separate tablet computers as a process facilitating
information exchange precludes the tablets from being considered remote.
Even assuming that the described “bumping” operation means some physical
contact occurs between the computers, left unexplained is why such contact,
likely brief, somehow compels a determination that those computers are not
“remote” from one another. Indeed, we observe that contrary to such a
view, Hinckley itself characterizes the tablets with respect to each other as
one being a “local device” and the other a “remote device.” (Hinckley, p.
151, first column, second paragraph.)
Motiva also contends that some of its claims, e.g., claim 27, require
three components; a first communication device, a second communication
device and a processing system. (Resp. Br., p. 9.) Motiva takes the position
that Hinckley’s disclosure of two tablet computers cannot satisfy the
requirement that there be three separate components. (Id.)
We reject Motiva’s position. The claims do not preclude a
communication device from also being a processing system. Hinckley’s
computer tablets are readily understood as constituting communication
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

11
devices which also each incorporate processing systems. We also agree with
Nintendo’s assessment appearing at pages 6-7 of its Rebuttal Brief that for a
given computer tablet, the processing system of the other computer tablet
constitutes a remote processing system.
In regard to the Examiner’s statements that Hinckley’s tablets do not
determine movement information for each other and thus do not account for
the corresponding feature of the claims, we are not persuaded that those
statements are correct. As set forth in Nintendo’s Briefs (App. Br., pp. 16-
20; Reb. Br. pp. 7-9), Hinckley describes the use of “synchronous gestures”
as a technique for exchanging information between computer tablet devices.
Hinckley sets forth the meaning of “synchronous gestures” as follows
(Hinckley, p. 149, Abstract):
These are patterns of activity, contributed by multiple users (or one
user with multiple devices), which take on a new meaning when they
occur together in time, or in a specific sequence in time.

To accomplish the synchronous gestures, the computer tablets each
incorporate touch sensors and “two-axis linear accelerometers (tilt sensors).”
(Id.) Hinckley further provides (id. at p. 149, second column; p. 152, first
column) (emphasis in original):
To demonstrate the practical utility of synchronous gestures this work
proposes dynamic display tiling, a new technique which enables user
to tile together the displays of multiple tablets just by physically
bumping a tablet into another one lying flat on a desk (Fig. 1).
---
The combined information from the accelerometers allows the system
to sense the command (tile the displays) as well as its parameters: the
edge to tile along (left, right, top, bottom) and, in combination with
the touch sensors, the direction (which computer “sends” and which
“receives” information, using the connecting vs. base tablet
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

12
distinction). Bumping naturally phrase [sic] together all of these
parameters in a simple physical act that seems like a single cognitive
chunk from the user’s perspective [5].

Hinckley also establishes that upon recognizing the synchronous
gestures, the system may provide various forms of visual or audio
“feedback” to signify that information exchange has occurred. (Id. at p. 154,
first column.)
We have evaluated Motiva’s contention that Hinckley’s tablets do not
“determine movement information” for each other “for providing feedback
or control data” as required by the claims. (Resp. Br., pp. 9-10) However,
in light of the above-discussed disclosure of Hinckley, we are not persuaded
that Motiva’s contention is correct.
We are cognizant that Motiva also generally contends that other
features of the claims are absent from Hinckley. The only specificity given
for the contention is (Resp. Br., p. 10):
For example, Hinckley fails to describe: a communication device
adapted to accept various mechanical extension pieces depending on
the application desires (dependent claims 16 and 68)… two
controllers in “electrical communication” with each other and where
a remote processing system is “adapted to determine movement
information” of both controllers (e.g., dependent claim 27).

Nintendo, in its Appeal Brief (pp. 18-33), sets forth detailed claim
charts identifying where Hinckley discloses each of the limitations set forth
in the claims on Appeal. It is not apparent to us how the content of Hinckley
which is referenced in Nintendo’s Appeal Brief is inadequate in accounting
for Motiva’s claims. For instance, portions of Hinckley cited for showing
mechanical extensions pieces include discussion of computing devices
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

13
augmented with “custom sensors” or implemented with “mice” or a “stylus.”
(Hinckley, p. 157, second column.) We do not discern why, given those
disclosures, Hinckley’s computer tables are not adapted to receive
mechanical extension pieces as in claims 16 and 68. We also do not discern
why Hinckley’s computer tablets themselves do not constitute the controllers
called for in claim 27.
We have reviewed the record including the content of Hinckley. For
the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Examiner was incorrect in
declining to adopt Nintendo’s proposed rejections of claims 12-16, 21-25,
27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84 as anticipated by Hinckley.
Accordingly, pursuant to authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b), we enter the
anticipation rejection of those claims proposed by Nintendo and is set forth
at pages 18-33 of its Appeal Brief.
THE PROPOSED REJECTION BASED ON FRENCH
The Examiner declined to enter a rejection of claims 16, 27-34, and 44
as anticipated by French. Nintendo challenges the Examiner’s decision.
Each of claims 16, 27-34 and 44 ultimately depend on claim 1. As discussed
above, claim 1 is directed to a system for tracking movement of a user. That
system incorporates a “first communication device” that is “handheld.” The
communication device also includes an output device which “provides
sensory stimuli” according to data signals received by the communication
device.
At issue in connection with the proposed French rejection, is whether
that reference discloses that an output device is incorporated as component
of a handheld communication device and that it provides sensory stimuli
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

14
based on signals received at the handheld device. The Examiner (Ans., pp.
6-7) and Motiva (Resp. Br., pp. 10-14) urge that French does not disclose the
above-noted features. Nintendo contends otherwise (App. Br., pp. 33-37;
Reb. Br., pp. 9-12.) We are not persuaded by Nintendo that the Examiner
erred in declining to adopt the proposed anticipation rejection based on
French.
French characterizes its disclosed invention as follows (French 1:14-
19):
The present invention relates to an education system for engaging a
student in a kinesthetic learning process. Specifically, the invention
relates to an education system utilizing a wireless position tracker for
continuously tracking and determining a student’s position during
movement in a defined physical space.

We observe that the proposed anticipation rejection appearing in
Nintendo’s Appeal Brief identifies portions of French’s column 5 as
disclosing the required output device. (App. Br., p. 38.) Those portions
refer to an “active emitter which emits sound or light waves” which may be
worn by a player and may receive signals. (French, 5:36-62.) The column
does not describe the active emitter as being part of a communication device
that is handheld. To apparently account for that requirement, Nintendo
points to other portions of French at column 32, 33, and 35. (App. Br., p.
38.) Certain of those portions of French describe a desire to provide “tactile
and force feedback” (French, 32:47-53) through the operation of “resistance
devices” which may be attached to “upper extremities.” (id. at 33:20-24; 37-
51). Other of those portions in French describe the “emitter” and its
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

15
operation of facilitating the tracking of a wearer of the emitter which include
emitting sound waves or light waves. (Id. at 35:39-55.)
A thorough reading of the content of French reveals that the “active
emitter” and the “resistance devices” are not the same component.
Nintendo’s proposed rejection, however, is seemingly predicated on an
amalgamation of those two components as constituting the required output
device. In particular, Nintendo relies on the function of the active emitter in
receiving data signals and generating feedback in the form of sound or light
waves. On the other hand, Nintendo points to description of resistance
devices as being attached to a person’s upper extremities to account for the
“handheld” aspect of the claims.
In our view, Nintendo’s attempt to combine characteristics of separate
and distinct components which have different structures and functions so as
to account for the component which is the required output device is, in this
case, insufficient to establish anticipation. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner was incorrect in refusing to adopt the rejection
of claims 16, 27-34, and 44 as anticipated by French.
D. CONCLUSION
1. We conclude that Okamoto lacks disclosure of a first
communication device which is “adapted to accept various mechanical
extensions pieces” as required by claims 16 and 68, such that the Examiner
was correct in declining to adopt the proposed rejection of those claims as
anticipated by Okamoto.
2. We conclude that the record suitably establishes that claims 16
and 68 would have been obvious based on Okamoto.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

16
3. We conclude that the Examiner was not correct in declining to
reject claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34, 44, 57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84 as
anticipated by Hinckley.
4. We conclude that the Examiner correctly declined to reject
claims 16, 27-34, and 44 as anticipated by French.
E. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 16 and 68 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Okamoto is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 12-16, 21-25, 27-34, 44,
57, 65, 68, 73-76, 81, and 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hinckley is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 16, 27-34, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by French is affirmed.
We enter new grounds of rejection of claims 16 and 68 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto.

This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b) which provides that “[a]ny decision which includes a new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review.” Correspondingly, no portion of the decision is final for
purposes of judicial review. A requester may also request rehearing under
37 C.F.R. § 41.79, if appropriate, however, the Board may elect to defer
issuing any decision on such request for rehearing until such time that a final
decision on appeal has been issued by the Board.
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

17
For further guidance on new grounds of rejection, see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b)-(g). The decision may become final after it has returned to the
Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f).
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) also provides that the Patent Owner, WITHIN
ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one
of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file a response requesting
reopening of prosecution before the examiner. Such a response must be
either an amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both.
(2) Request rehearing. The owner may request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.79 by the Board upon the same record. …

Any request to reopen prosecution before the examiner under 37
C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1) shall be limited in scope to the “claims so rejected.”
Accordingly, a request to reopen prosecution is limited to issues raised by
the new ground(s) of rejection entered by the Board. A request to reopen
prosecution that includes issues other than those raised by the new ground(s)
is unlikely to be granted. Furthermore, should the patent owner seek to
substitute claims, there is a presumption that only one substitute claim would
be needed to replace a cancelled claim.
A requester may file comments in reply to a patent owner response.
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(c). Requester comments under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(c) shall
be limited in scope to the issues raised by the Board's opinion reflecting its
Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

18
decision to reject the claims and the patent owner's response under
paragraph 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1). A newly proposed rejection is not
permitted as a matter of right. A newly proposed rejection may be
appropriate if it is presented to address an amendment and/or new evidence
properly submitted by the patent owner, and is presented with a brief
explanation as to why the newly proposed rejection is now necessary and
why it could not have been presented earlier.
Compliance with the page limits pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.943(b), for
all patent owner responses and requester comments, is required.
The examiner, after the Board's entry of a patent owner response and
requester comments, will issue a determination under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(d)
as to whether the Board's rejection is maintained or has been overcome. The
proceeding will then be returned to the Board together with any comments
and reply submitted by the owner and/or requester under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(e) for reconsideration and issuance of a new decision by the Board
as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

Appeal 2012-002525
Reexamination Control 95/000,540
Patent 7,292,151

19
PATENT OWNER:
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
DUBLIN, OH 43017

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203