14789995 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2019)

Ex Parte LITMAN

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 8, 2019

14789995 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/789,995 07/02/2015 97462 7590 07/08/2019 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. 7001 Cahill Road, Ste. ISA Edina, MN 55439 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark A. LITMAN 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 004.006US1 9110 EXAMINER ZHANG, YINGCHUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2019 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK A. LITMAN 1 Appeal2019-001585 2 Application 14/789,995 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 1 "The real party in interest in this Appeal is the sole inventor of this Application, Mark Alan Litman, also the counsel of Record." App. Br. 3. Thus, for the purposes of this appeal, we designate Mark Alan Litman as the "Appellant." 2 Appeal No. 2019-000113 pertains to Application No. 14/805,863, which was filed on July 22, 2015 and claims priority to the same three provisional patent applications as the present application. See the Specification of both cases. Appeal2019-001585 Application 14/789,995 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing ("Req. Reh'g") dated May 7, 2019, and an Additional Request for Rehearing ("Add. Req. Reh'g") dated May 14, 2019, under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.52, of the Decision on Appeal mailed May 2, 2019 ("Decision"). 3 This Decision sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14 as being indefinite and also sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 24--33 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. See Decision 14. Appellant states that these Requests are "made to assure that issues not addressed in the decision or improperly addressed in the decision will be made to perfect the file history for Appeal to the CAFC." Req. Reh'g 1; Add. Req. Reh'g 1. We note that the issues presented by Appellant in both these Requests pertain to matters of subject matter eligibility, and not to whether claims 13 and 14 are indefinite. Upon consideration of Appellant's Requests, we do not modify our opm10n. A REQUEST FOR REHEARING A request for rehearing "must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board, hereinafter "Board"]." See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.52(a)(l). This section also states that arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the briefs "are not permitted in 3 Appellant's comments disparaging the Office are unhelpful. See, e.g., Add. Req. Reh'g 3 (referring to Office personnel as "incompetent"). We remind Appellant that "[e]ach party must act with courtesy and decorum in all proceedings before the Board, including interactions with other parties." 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.l(c). 2 Appeal2019-001585 Application 14/789,995 the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section." In addition, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement with a decision without setting forth points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering its Decision. The proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 141, 145. Initial Request for Rehearing The Request is essentially a disagreement with our Decision and the state of the law regarding patent eligibility, which, as noted above, is not a proper basis for rehearing. Moreover, Appellant does not "state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board," as required by our rules. 37 CPRÂ§ 4I.52(a)(l). Rather, Appellant's contentions are presented as vague generalities that are not useful for review on rehearing. Further, Appellant provides no citation to any of its briefing in the appeal from which this rehearing is requested. Additional Request for Rehearing Appellant's Additional Request for Rehearing is improper. See 37 CPR Â§ 41. 5 2 (a)( 1) (" Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board.") (emphasis added). We do not consider Appellant's Additional Request for Rehearing. 3 Appeal2019-001585 Application 14/789,995 DECISION Appellant's Request for Rehearing has been granted to the extent that the Board reconsidered its Decision in light of the statements made in this Request, but is denied with respect to the Board making any modification to the Decision. DENIED 4