Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

11831625 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte KENNETH M. ANDERSON
__________

Appeal 2012-000735
Application 11/831,625
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant filed an amendment after our Decision on Request for
Rehearing on October 16, 2013. The Examiner denied entry to the
amendment and requested that Appellant’s response be treated as a request
for rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner did not enter Appellant’s amendment.1 Therefore, the
record, claims, and evidence before us remains identical to the record,

1 The decision of an Examiner to decline to enter an Amendment,
in whole or in part, is a petitionable matter, not an appealable
matter, and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re
Appeal 2012-000735
Application 11/831,625

2
claims, and evidence which formed the basis for our previous Decision on
Request for Rehearing. See Ex parte Comstock, 317 O.G. 4 (Comm’r Pat.
1923) (“where the applicant elects to return to the Primary Examiner the
case is not reopened for all purposes, but only to enable the applicant to
overcome the effect of the new reference or reasons cited in the
recommendations of the Examiners in Chief. The case is not reopened for
the consideration of other matters or claims which were or should have been
presented and decided prior to or in the original appeal. The case is
reopened only to enable the applicant to meet the new ground of rejection.”)
We have reviewed Appellant’s submission on October 16, 2013, but
find no arguments or evidence identifying an issue which we either
misapprehended or overlooked. Instead, Appellant newly argues the merits
of claim 15, a claim not previously addressed in the Appeal Brief, the Reply
Brief, or the Request for Rehearing filed Jan. 31, 2013. See Cooper v.
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A party cannot wait until
after the Board has rendered an adverse decision and then present new
arguments in a request for reconsideration.”) 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2011).
DECISION
In short, Appellant identifies no error in the Board’s April 26, 2013
decision. Accordingly Appellant’s request for rehearing is denied. This
decision is final for purposes of judicial review.

Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). Also see Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c)(3); 1201.
Appeal 2012-000735
Application 11/831,625

3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

DENIED

cdc