12038177 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 8, 2011)

Ex Parte Giordano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 8, 2011

12038177 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 8, 2011)

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. 12/038,177 02/27/2008 Joseph A. Giordano 007131.00148 5152 69603 7590 12/08/2011 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA 430 DAVIS DRIVE, SUITE 500 POST OFFICE BOX 13706 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709 EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3684 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JOSEPH A. GIORDANO, CHRISTOPHER R. GRIGGS, HITESH BAJAJ, DOUGLAS G. BROWN, and JADE M. VO-DINH ____________________ Appeal 2010-010674 Application 12/038,177 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-010674 Application 12/038,177 2 Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration (hereinafter “Req.”) on December 2, 2011 of the Board’s Decision on Appeal of October 3, 2011 (hereinafter “Dec.”), asking that we reconsider and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 23. Appellants assert that claim 23 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10, the rejection of which was not sustained (Dec. 5-6). We note that while Appellants separately argued the patentability of claim 10 (App. Br. 11), Appellants did not either group claim 23 with claim 10, or separately argue for the patentability of claim 23. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, we agree claim 23 substantially recites the same subject matter as claim 10. Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ request. For the same reasons we did not sustain the rejection of claim 10, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23. GRANTED hh