Ex Parte Miller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12545407 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/545,407 08/21/2009 Steven M. Miller RSW920080385US1 (765) 1276
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
LOWENBERGER, AARON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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 STEVEN M. MILLER
Appeal 2016-000129
Application 12/545,407
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant asserts we have overlooked or misapprehended the core
arguments of the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (Req. for Reh’g 2—5).
According to Appellant, the Board misapprehended Hahn’s teaching of
copying to a clipboard content already in multiple formats, where
“Appellants have argued the importance of formatting an object once in the
clipboard into multiple different target formats” (id. at 4). Appellant
contends if content has been formatted prior to entry into the clipboard, the
content would not need to be formatted when in the clipboard (id.). Thus,
Appellant has requested reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal.
We are not persuaded we misapprehended Appellant’s arguments. As
stated in our Decision, Appellant’s arguments are directed at Hahn
Appeal 2016-000129
Application 12/545,407
individually, while the Examiner is relying on the combination of Hahn and
Stuple for teaching the disputed limitation “formatting the object in the
clipboard in each of the target formats” (Dec. 4 (citing Final Act. 4)). We
further stated “Appellant has not addressed the combination of teachings of
Hahn and Stuple relied upon by the Examiner and, thus, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner’s finding are in error” {id.). Specifically, the
Examiner stated
Hahn teaches having data in a clipboard in multiple formats (see
paragraph 0023 and 0031). Though Hahn does not explicitly
teach that this formatting occurs for an object already in the
clipboard, it would be obvious, when combined with Stuple, to
format the objects already in the clipboard in the multiple formats
determined by Stuple for the objects already in the clipboard.
(Ans. 4—5).
Our findings with respect to Hahn stated “we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Hahn teaches data content is copied to the
clipboard in multiple formats (Hahn || 23, 26, 31)” and “Hahn teaches the
data may be rendered in multiple formats” (Dec. 4—5). We further stated
Appellant had not persuaded us the Examiner’s finding “Hahn’s teachings,
combined with Stuple’s teaching of determining target formats for objects
already in the clipboard, teach or at least suggest ‘formatting the object in
the clipboard in each of the target formats,’ as recited in claim 15” was in
error (Dec. 5). Thus, as we found in our Decision, Appellant’s argument
that Hahn does not disclose “formatting an object in the clipboard” is not
persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combination of Stuple and
Hahn for teaching the disputed limitation and Appellant has not addressed
the combination (Dec. 5). Indeed, Appellant did not address the
combination of teachings.
2
Appeal 2016-000129
Application 12/545,407
Therefore, we find Appellant’s arguments that we misapprehended or
overlooked arguments for claim 15 unpersuasive.
DECISION
Accordingly, we have granted Appellants’ Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision but have denied it with respect
to making any modifications to the Decision.
REHEARING DENIED
3