Ex Parte Elkasevic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13478274 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
13/478,274 05/23/2012 Suad Elkasevic 2011P04002US 7225
46726 7590 08/02/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUAD ELKASEVIC
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, dated
July 7, 2017, of our Decision mailed May 8, 2017. In the Decision, we
affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—10, 12—16, and 18—27.
Decision 5. Appellant seeks rehearing as to the portion of the Decision
rejecting claims 2, 6, 12, 14, 18, and 25—27. Req. 1—2.
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
DISCUSSION
Appellant states that the Board failed to address their arguments with
respect to claims 2, 6, 12, 14, 18, and 25—27. Req. 1—2. Thus, Appellant
requests rehearing on this basis. Id. at 2.
The Panel in rendering the original decision did consider the
arguments with respect to these dependent claims. These arguments were
addressed when the Board addressed similar arguments made concerning
claim 1. Decision 5. In particular, Footnote 1 of the Decision on page 5
states: “This same argument is presented multiple times with respect to the
patentability of claims 1, 7, and 13; claims 2, 8, and 14; and then claims 3, 6,
9, 12, 15, 18, and 25-27. Appeal Br. 13-15.”
In stating that the Board overlooked these arguments, Appellant does
not identify any matters misapprehended by the Board in rendering the
original decision. Further, Appellant does not identify any reason why the
argument would be more applicable to any of the dependent claims as
compared to the independent claims. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments
are not persuasive of error in the rejection or misunderstanding in our
decision affirming the rejection.
DECISION AND ORDER
We deny the Request.
DENIED
2