Ex Parte KimberDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613525363 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. 13/525,363 06/18/2012 Timothy Kimber GB920070024US2 (467CON) 1130 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 EXAMINER HO, BINH VAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY KIMBER1 Appeal 2014-009334 Application 13/525,363 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is a decision on Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is filed under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) requesting that we reconsider our Decision of September 28, 2016 (“Dec.”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Request for Rehearing, and have found no errors. Therefore, we decline to change the Decision. Appellant’s request is DENIED. 1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2014-009334 Application 13/525,363 DISCUSSION Appellant contends the Board erred in affirming the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12 because the Board did not address Appellant’s argument that “the portions cited in Mynett refer to the repeating of a sync pattern for a pre-determined number of times—not the claimed matching of a field in a reference bit stream for a pre-determined number of times.” Req. Reh’g 4 (quoting Reply Br. 4); see also App. Br. 4— 5. However, Mynett’s teachings and suggestions are not limited to sync pattern repetition alone. Rather, Mynett teaches or suggests the steps of generating a synchronization packet (i.e., repeating of a sync pattern for a pre-determined number of times), transmitting the packet as part of a serial message, receiving the transmitted serial message (comprising the repeated sync pattern or synchronization packet), and synchronizing by comparing a portion of the synchronization packet with a predetermined sampling pattern. See Mynett col. 2,11. 34—53. Both the Examiner and the Board properly relied on the teachings and suggestions in Mynett of “comparing] a portion of the repeated synchronization pattern with a predetermined sampling pattern.” Dec. 4 (citing Mynett col. 2,11. 50—53; emphasis added); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Mynett col. 2,11. 49—62); Ans. 5. Appellant’s contentions on Request for Rehearing merely repeat arguments (cf App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—\\ Req. Reh’g 3 4) that were unpersuasive because they were not responsive to the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings and suggestions of Mynett directed to synchronizing by comparing a portion of the synchronization packet with a predetermined sampling pattern (see Dec. 5 (“Mynett teaches or suggests determining that a message field . . . matches a predetermined sampling 2 Appeal 2014-009334 Application 13/525,363 pattern”); Final Act. 5; Ans. 5). Accordingly, we find Mynett teaches or suggests “determining that a message field in said one or more subsequently received messages matches a field in the reference bitstream a predetermined number of times,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. For these reasons, Appellant does not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked any issues raised by Appellant with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection. Therefore, we decline to change our Decision as it relates to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12. DECISION Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we have granted Appellant’s request to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we DENY Appellant’s request with respect to making any change thereto. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation