Ex Parte Da Silva Neto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2015

10518545 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2015)

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.
10/518,545 02/08/2006 Ugenio Ferreira Da Silva Neto DASI3002/FJD 9542
23364 7590 03/16/2017
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, BRYAN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
MAIL @B ACONTHOMAS .COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UGENIO FERREIRA DA SILVA NETO
Appeal 2013-006847
Application 10/518,545
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has requested rehearing of the decision entered September
1, 2015, which affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12—22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have considered Appellant’s arguments, and
we are not persuaded that any matters were misapprehended or overlooked
in our Decision. Therefore, the request for rehearing is denied.
Appeal 2013-006847
Application 10/518,545
DISCUSSION
A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points [of
law or fact] believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board,” and must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2012). Appellant
contends that our Decision only considered the contentions in the principal
Appeal Brief, mentioned only one Reply Brief, and overlooked the other
Reply Briefs. Req. Reh’g 2. Appellant further argues the Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer quotes a paragraph from Gillen that is nowhere to be
found and the Board should have noted this overreaching on the part of the
Examiner. Req. Reh’g 2—3. Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner
does not provide a basis for why the control unit of Gillen is considered by
the Examiner to be the same as the claimed control unit. Req. Reh’g 3.
We are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any points of
law or fact. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion that our consideration of
Appellant’s contentions was “presumably from the BRIEF only” (Req.
Reh’g 2), our Decision considered all of the contentions presented by
Appellant—including those made in all three Reply Briefs—and found them
to be insufficient to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejections. See
Dec. 3.
Appellant’s assertion the Examiner is testifying by quoting a non­
existent paragraph from Gillen is a new argument, which is not permitted in
the Request for Rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Arguments not
raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, ... are not permitted in the
request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4).”). However, we observe that the Examiner specifically states the
2
Appeal 2013-006847
Application 10/518,545
quoted paragraph is from Appellant’s Specification, and not Gillen as
alleged by Appellant. See Ans. 3.
Finally, our Decision considered Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding Gillen teaches the “remote control unit.” Dec. 3—
4. We were not persuaded of error because the Examiner found Crater
teaches “connected over a bus with a remote control unit” (i.e., a control unit
that is remote) and explained that “[o]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” Dec. 4 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown we
misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision.
CONCLUSION
We have granted Appellant’s request for rehearing to the extent that
we have reconsidered our Decision entered September 1, 2015. Appellant
has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of law or
fact in reaching that Decision. Accordingly, the request is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
REHEARING DENIED
3