Ex Parte Grasmueck

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2014

11381159 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014)

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