Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2015

95002082 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015)

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.
95/002,082 08/22/2012 7,736,389 B1 PRES06-00513 1040
7590 04/30/2015
Edwin H. Crabtree
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive
Suite 575
Denver, CO 80209
EXAMINER
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2015 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
____________________

REFOCUS OCULAR, INC.
Requester, Respondent

v.

READING ENHANCEMENT CO.
Patent Owner, Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2014-006759
Reexamination Control 95/002,082
US Patent No. 7,736,389 B1
1

Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before: STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, DANIEL S. SONG, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1
Issued on June 15, 2010 to Richard E. Damiano (hereinafter referred to as
the '389 patent).
Appeal 2014-006759
Reexamination Control 95/002,082
US Patent No. 7,736,389 B1

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Requester filed REQUESTER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
on October 24, 2014 (hereinafter "Rehearing Request" or "Rhrg. Req.")
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 seeking rehearing of our Decision mailed
September 26, 2014 (hereinafter "Decision" or "Dec."), which reversed
various final rejections of the claims made by the Examiner. We grant the
Rehearing Request to the extent that we consider the Requester's arguments,
but DENY the request to modify the Decision.
A Rehearing Request under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 has the very specific
requirements that the party seeking rehearing allege that the Board
misapprehended or overlooked something in rendering the original decision.
Here, the Requester has done neither, but merely rehashes arguments already
made and rejected. See Rhrg. Req. 1-8. As the Patent Owner points out, the
"Requester ignores the Board's claim construction" and "makes no effort to
provide support for an argument that the Board misapprehended or
overlooked important points that would have raised questions as to the
Board's claim construction or the applicability of the prior art of record to
the properly interpreted claim." Patent Owner's Opposition to Rhrg. Req. 2.
A Rehearing Request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to
reargue its case or to express disagreement with the Decision, which is all
the Requester has done in this instance. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of any basis for granting the Rehearing Request.
Appeal 2014-006759
Reexamination Control 95/002,082
US Patent No. 7,736,389 B1

3

DECISION
While we have considered the Decision in light of the Rehearing
Request, we decline to modify it in any respect.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this decision is final for the purpose
of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

DENIED
PATENT OWNER:
EDWIN H. CRABTREE
3773 CHERRY CREEK N. DRIVE
SUITE 575
DENVER, CO 80209

REQUESTER:
WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ.
C/O DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380