Ex Parte Miller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 201411693281 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014) 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. 11/693,281 03/29/2007 Kenneth James Miller 81152577 9015 28395 7590 10/15/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER CHIBOGU, CHIEDU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3631 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2014 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 KENNETH JAMES MILLER, SCOTT HOWARD GABOURY, BRANDON R. MASTERSON, WALTER JOSEPH ORTMANN, MARVIN PAUL KRASKA, and STEVEN A. DALEIDEN ____________ Appeal 2012-004392 Application 11/693,281 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kenneth James Miller et al. (Appellants) filed a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (hereinafter “Request”), dated September 30, 2014, of our decision mailed July 31, 2014 (hereinafter “Decision”). In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–13, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-004392 Application 11/693,281 2 OPINION Appellants disagree with two points made by the Panel in the Decision. We grant the Request to the extent that we have considered Appellants’ arguments, but otherwise deny the Request. A request for rehearing is limited to matters overlooked or misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52; see also Ex parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (quoting Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1214.03 (8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012)). It may not rehash arguments originally made in the Brief, neither is it an opportunity to merely express disagreement with a decision.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. §§ 141, 145. Appellants’ disagreement with our determinations that “Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The rejection relies upon Ibaraki’s rotationally mounted appliances . . . rather than Shimasaki’s electric motor” (Request 2, citing Decision 3) and the “Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner because Ibaraki by itself is not relied upon to teach this limitation” (Request 3, citing Decision 4) does not identify any matter overlooked or misapprehended by the Panel, and thus, is not appropriate for this forum. Assuming that Appellants’ intent was to identify matters allegedly misapprehended by the Panel, it appears Appellants are contending that the Panel misapprehended the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We did not Appeal 2012-004392 Application 11/693,281 3 misapprehend the Examiner’s rejection. The rejection relies upon Shimasaki to teach a clutch, not a rotationally powered accessory device. See Ans. 8– 9.1 Thus, Appellants’ argument that Shimasaki’s electric motor is not the claimed rotationally powered accessory device (App. Br. 3) was not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Further, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of McGee’s transmission (Ans. 5) and Ibaraki’s rotationally powered accessory device (Ans. 7), as opposed to either McGee or Ibaraki alone to meet the claim language requiring “a transmission including a rotationally powered accessory device.” Request 3. Therefore, Appellants’ argument was again not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. DECISION We grant the Request to the extent that we have considered the arguments, but otherwise deny the Request. DENIED Klh 1 Moreover, even if the Examiner misidentified Shimasaki’s electric motor 2 as a rotationally powered accessory device, such misidentification is not indicative of error. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation