Ex Parte Kanda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2008

10247825 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAKOTO KANDA
____________

Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 30, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is in response to a Request, filed December 11, 2007, for
Rehearing of our Decision, mailed October 15, 2007, wherein we affirmed
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all appealed claims as being unpatentable
over either Landau or Wang in view of Ikeda.
In the Request, Appellant presents several arguments in favor of
patentability which are said to have been overlooked or misapprehended by
Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825

the Board in rendering the above decision. Specifically, Appellant argues
that:
(1) In Ikeda’s device, electromagnetic induction does
not occur and therefore Ikeda would not have
suggested providing either Landau or Wang with an
induction coil of the type required by appealed claim
8 (Request 2);

(2) “[A] person skilled in the art would conceive
changing the configuration of Fig. 15 of Ikeda so
that the vibratory beam 301 would be replaced with
the semiconductor substrate of the present
application,” and “[t]his would not assure stable
vibration … and thus would not have been done”
(Request 3); and

(3) The claimed invention yields unpredictable results
(Request 3-4).

Significantly, not one of the above-noted arguments presented
in Appellant's Request appears in the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief
for this appeal.
It follows that the new arguments of Appellant's Request were
not overlooked or misapprehended by the Board in rendering the
above Decision since these arguments were not before the Board at
that time. In this regard, it is well settled that an Appellant has waived
arguments which would have been timely presented in a Brief but
which were belatedly presented for the first time in a Request for
Rehearing as here. See In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Moreover, Appellant’s presentation of such arguments in the
Request violates 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a) (1).

2
Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825

The Request for Rehearing is denied.
DENIED

cam

NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON VA 22203

3