Ex Parte Meers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

13460919 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

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.
13/460,919 05/01/2012 Ryan C. Meers 11463 PUS; 67080-540
PUS1
8766
26096 7590 01/03/2018
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C
EXAMINER
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
CHEUNG, CHUN HOI
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3728
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2018 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN C. MEERS
Appeal 2015-006968
Application 13/460,919
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2015-006968
Application 13/460,919
Appellant filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING on November 6,
2017 (hereinafter “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52, seeking rehearing of our Decision, mailed September 5, 2017
(hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”), which affirmed various final rejections
of the claims made by the Examiner. We grant the Rehearing Request to the
extent that we consider the Requester’s arguments, but DENY the request to
modify the Decision.
Appellant’s request is based upon the premise that the Board
overlooked or misapprehended the teachings of Knox and the arguments
made with respect thereto. Reh’g Req. 1. Even if we were to agree with
Appellant’s arguments regarding Knox, the main issue relating to the
rejection was not to Knox’s teachings, but to the motivation for combining
the references. Nowhere in the Decision did the Board rely solely on the
teachings in Knox, implicit or otherwise, as to whether items could be
stacked upon Knox’s bucket/handle. In fact, as very clearly stated, “[t]he
Examiner’s finding that buckets and other items may be supported on the
handle need not be disclosed in Knox itself and can be gleaned from the
knowledge of one of skill in the art.” Dec. 4. Appellant’s Rehearing
Request does not address this basis for supporting the Examiner’s rejection.
As such, nothing was overlooked or misapprehended warranting revision of
the decision.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections remain affirmed.
2
Appeal 2015-006968
Application 13/460,919
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.
§ 1.136(a) (l)(iv).
DENIED
3