Ex Parte Giniger et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 201312014021 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 12/014,021 01/14/2008 Martin S. Giniger 14475.859US02 9727 7590 06/27/2013 Martin Giniger 315 W. 39th St. 11th Floor New York City, NY 10018-1412 EXAMINER MORAN, EDWARD JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2013 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 ____________________ Ex parte MARTIN S. GINIGER and ROWLAND HANSON ____________________ Appeal 2012-002325 Application 12/014,021 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF CASE This is a response to a Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision of April 11, 2013. Requests for Rehearing are limited to matters overlooked or misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52. Appeal 2012-002325 Application 12/014,021 2 OPINION The sole point of contention in this request for rehearing is the Panel’s comment indicating that the rejection of claims 3 and 4 stood or fell with that of claim 1. If Appellants understood this comment to mean that we were grouping claims 3 and 4 as rejected and argued together with claim 1 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we clarify that that was not our intent. Appellants did not provide any substantive arguments specific to the Examiner’s application of Altshuler or the other art cited against claims 3 and 4. Appellants’ only arguments with regard to these claims were based upon an alleged deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 1, and the alleged failure of Altshuler to cure that deficiency. App. Br. 21; Request 2. Since, as explained in our original opinion, we did not perceive a deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as alleged by Appellants, Appellants’ argument that Altshuler fails to cure a non-existent deficiency did not apprise us of any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4, leaving the reasoning articulated by the Examiner concerning these claims (Ans. 9- 10) uncontroverted. Our decision to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 was reached on the totality of the record, with due consideration given to the evidence and arguments before us. For the forgoing reasons, Appellants failed to apprise us that any matter has been misapprehended or overlooked in the rendering of our original Decision. Reconsideration has been granted to the extent that we reconsidered our previous decision. It is denied with respect to making any changes thereto. Appeal 2012-002325 Application 12/014,021 3 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections remain affirmed. DENIED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
