Ex Parte GrasmueckDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201411381159 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK GRASMUECK ____________________ Appeal 2011-011659 Application 11/381,159 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2011-011659 Application 11/381,159 2 STATEMENT OF CASE This is a response to a Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision of March 24, 2014 (“Decision”). 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. OPINION Appellant contends that “the findings of the Board appear to not have located the claimed *laser* positioning system.” Request at 2-4 (emphasis in original). Appellant’s assertion that we overlooked this matter appears to stem from the statement in the Decision that “[Lehmann’s] prism and theodolite operate as a positioning system,” as opposed to a “laser positioning system.” Request at 3 quoting Decision at 6. Appellant’s original argument was that “[the] Examiner provides no evidentiary support for the allegation that Lehmann teaches a laser positioning system.” App. Br. 6. The only further explanation for Appellant’s assertion in this regard was that “[the] Examiner implicitly compares the antennae of Lehmann to a laser positioning system.” App. Br. 11. As we explained (Decision at 6 citing Ans. 16) interpreting Lehmann’s antennae alone (Request at 3, App. Br. 11), as opposed to the antenna which cooperates with the prism and laser theodolite to sense position, as the recited “laser positioning system,” was a mischaracterization of the Examiner’s position. Based on our understanding of Appellant’s argument, we did, in some portions of our original opinion, emphasize the positioning capabilities of Lehmann’s system as opposed to the use of a laser for that purpose. Appeal 2011-011659 Application 11/381,159 3 However, we also stated that: The Examiner correctly determined that the prism and self- tracking theodolite of Lehmann operate as a laser positioning system communicatively linked to a georadar antenna, which operates as the geophysical sensor. Ans. 11-12. Lehman teaches a self-tracking laser theodolite with automatic target recognition capabilities . . . Decision at 5 (emphasis added). Based on Lehmann’s consistent use of the term “laser theodolite” to describe the theodolite and the laser beam clearly depicted as emerging from that theodolite in Figure 1 (reproduced at App. Br. 11; Request at 3), we are not apprised of any reasonable basis for concluding that “Lehmann lacks the presence of a laser positioning system, [disclosing] just a mere positioning system.” Contra Request at 4. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph remains reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph remains affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) remains affirmed. DENIED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation