Ex Parte Mui

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 14, 2008

10737029 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIEL SAUFU MUI
____________

Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: November 14, 2008
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON and SALLY C. MEDLEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
A. Statement of the Case
ZiLOG, Inc. (“Zilog”), the real party in interest, seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final Rejection of claims 1-10, 13-16 and 18-26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part and enter a
new ground of rejection.
Zilog’s invention is related to a system and associated method that
includes a key code generator that receives a keystroke from a remote
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

2
control device. The key code generator generates a key code and transmits
the key code. Spec. 2-3, 6-8, 11-12.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
A method comprising:
(a) receiving a keystroke indicator signal from a remote
control device;
(b) generating a key code within a key code generator device;
(c) modulating said key code onto a carrier signal, thereby
generating a key code signal; and
(d) transmitting said key code signal from said key code
generator device.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Goldstein 5,410,326 Apr. 25, 1995
McNair et al. (“McNair”) 5,595,342 Jan. 21, 1997
August et al. (“August”) 5,671,267 Sep. 23, 1997
Pope 5,963,624 Oct. 5, 1999
Teskey 6,747,568 Jun. 8, 2004
Wouters et al. (“Wouters”) 6,915,109 Jul. 5, 2005

The Examiner rejected claims 13-16, 19, 22 and 24-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wouters.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 18, 20-21 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
1. Claim 18 as unpatentable over Wouters and Teskey;
2. Claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Wouters and August;
3. Claim 23 as unpatentable over Wouters and Pope;
4. Claims 1, 3-4 and 9 as unpatentable over Pope and McNair;
5. Claim 2 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Goldstein;
6. Claims 5 and 10 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Teskey;
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

3
7. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and August;
8. Claim 7 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Wouters;
9. Claim 8 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair, Wouters and August.
B. Findings of Fact (“FF”)
Zilog’s Specification
1. Zilog’s specification describes “[i]n one embodiment, the indication of a
pressed key is a keycode . . .”. Spec. 7.
Wouters
2. Wouters depicts a remote control unit 3 including an infrared (IR)
transmitter 4; and a radio frequency (RF) transmission system 6
including an IR receiver 7 and a radio transmitter 8 in a first room 1.
Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 23-30.
3. In a second room 2, there is a RF receiving system 12 which includes
radio receiver 13 and IR transmitter 14; and an IR receiver 16 coupled to
a device such as a VCR in room 2. Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 31-36; claim 1.
4. A radio signal 10 is received via antenna 11 by radio receiver 13, which
is coupled to IR transmitter 14 for generating IR signal 15. Fig. 1,
col. 3, ll. 31-32.
5. When a user taps a key on the remote control device 3, the central
processing unit (CPU) inside the remote control device determines
which code needs transmitting and fetches the required data from its
memory that comprises a database. Col. 4, ll. 53-58.
6. The invention may be used in a variety of systems and devices such as
systems comprising or using remote control, VCR, TV, Internet-enabled
TV, Set-top boxes, PC-TV, PC and home control. Col. 1, ll. 23-26.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

4
Pope
7. Pope describes transmitting appliance control codes from a cordless
digital telephone handset 10, 50 to base unit 12 in response to selection
of the appliance control via the handset keypad 30. Figs. 1, 2; col. 2,
ll. 48-col. 3, ll. 19.
8. The base unit processor 84 gets an infrared control code from memory
86 based on a received appliance control code. Fig. 3, col. 4, l. 62-
col. 5, l. 11.
9. Base unit 12 transmits infrared control code through outer window 36 to
electrical appliances 14-22. Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 35-41.
McNair
10. McNair describes that wireless transmission between a room
temperature sensor and a receiver can be around 173 MHz using
frequency modulation techniques including frequency shift keying.
Col. 2, ll. 9-18, 61-65.
Graham1
11. Graham describes modulating a digital code or binary code onto a
carrier signal. Abs., Col. 2, ll. 11-16.
12. Modulating a digital code onto a carrier signal precludes unauthorized
or accidental activation of a control of the receiving means. Spec. Abs.
13. Modulating a digital code or a binary code onto a carrier signal provides
an exceptional degree of security and privacy. Col. 2, ll. 7-11.
C. Principles of Law
“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing a
patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges who,

1 Graham, U.S. Patent No. 4,005,428 (issued Jan. 25, 1977).
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

5
post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is valid.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]s an initial matter, the
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” Id.
A claim undergoing examination is given its broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05 (CCPA 1969). But, “limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citation omitted).
“[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning
of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
“Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires that ‘each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d. 743,
745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co.,
814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

6
D. Analysis
Rejection of claims 13-16, 19, 22 and 24-26 as anticipated by Wouters
Claims 13 and 22
Independent claims 13 and 22 stand or fall together. App. Br. 11.
Representative claim 13 recites “A remote control device comprising: a
receiver . . . a transmitter . . .”. App. Br. 34.
The Examiner finds that Wouters’ system of devices depicted in room 1
and room 2 comprising an RF receiver, and an IR transmitter meets the
claim limitations. Final Rejection 4, Ans. 3-4; citing Wouters col. 4, ll. 25-
33, 48-57; fig. 1; FF2s 2-3.
Zilog argues that Wouters’ system of devices depicted in room 1 and
room 2 is not a single device. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 7-8. Zilog argues
that the Examiner’s interpretation is improper and is contrary to how the
term is used in the claims and specification. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-8.
Zilog asserts that it disavows the claim scope of a remote control so as to
exclude a system and cites case law in support of its position. App. Br. 12
We are unpersuaded by Zilog’s arguments. As made clear in Morris, the
PTO does not interpret claims in the same manner as judges who operate
under the assumption that the patent is valid. Instead, during patent
prosecution before the PTO, the broadest reasonable interpretation applies.
We broadly interpret “[a] remote control device” as an apparatus that
includes one or more components. The claim does not require the
components to be contained or housed within a single structure. Therefore,
the Examiner’s finding that Wouters’ system of devices meets Zilog’s “[a]

2 FF denotes Finding of Fact.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

7
remote control device” is consistent with the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a remote control device.
For all these reasons we find that Zilog has not sustained its burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 22 as anticipated
by Wouters.
Claims 14-16
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and recites “said keycode corresponds
to a second function of a second electronic consumer device, as well as to
said function of said electronic consumer device.” App. Br. 34.
The Examiner finds that when a remote control is used to activate two
devices of the same kind (e.g., VCRs of the same brand name) the same key
code is used for separate functions of turning on different electronic
consumer devices. Ans. 12-13.
Zilog argues that Wouters does not describe one key code that
corresponds to two separate functions of two different electronic consumer
devices. App. Br. 13. Zilog further argues that the Examiner’s
interpretation is inconsistent with the tenets of claim interpretation and the
use of the term “second function” in the claims and specification. Reply
Br. 8. Zilog argues that under the tenets of claim interpretation “said
function” and “a second function” used in the same claim cannot be
interpreted to be the same function.
We agree with Zilog. Within the same claim, the Examiner interprets
“said function” and “a second function” as the same function, yet interprets
“said electronic consumer device” and “a second electronic consumer
device” as different devices. The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
terms within a single claim is inconsistent. To be consistent, both “a second
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

8
function” and “a second electronic consumer device” must either be the
same as or different from both “said function” and “said electronic consumer
device”. Moreover, it would be counterintuitive for a claim drafter to use
the term “a second function” if the intent was for it to be interpreted the
same as “said function”. For these reasons, we find that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “said function” and “a second function” as the same
function to be unreasonable. We therefore find that the Examiner erred in
finding claim 14 anticipated by Wouters.
Claims 15 and 16 are dependent on claim 14. App. Br. 34-35. For the
same reasons explained above regarding claim 14, we find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 15 and 16 as anticipated by Wouters.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 22 which recites “means for receiving a
key code from said RF receiver and for sending said keycode to said IR
transmitter. . .”. App. Br. 14, 37. Claim 24 further recites “said means in a
microcontroller.” Both Zilog and the Examiner interpret a microcontroller
as a processor. Reply Br. 9, Final Rejection 5.
Zilog argues that Wouters does not disclose that radio receiver 13 is a
microcontroller and does not mention a microcontroller, microprocessor or
processor of any kind. Reply Br. 9.
We agree with Zilog’s arguments. The Examiner has not directed us to,
and we can not find, where Wouters explicitly or inherently discloses that
radio receiver 13 is a microcontroller or a processor. Instead, the Examiner
relies on a citation to Wouters which describes that radio receiver 13
receives a radio signal via antenna 11. Ans. 4, 13; citing Wouters col. 3,
ll. 31-32; FF 4.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

9
For this reason, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 as
anticipated over Wouters.
Claim 19
Independent claim 19 recites “a codeset is stored on said key code
generator device, said codeset including said first key code and said second
key code, wherein said first key code corresponds to a selected function of a
first electronic consumer device, and wherein said second key code
corresponds to said selected function of a second electronic consumer
device . . .”. App. Br. 35-36.
Zilog argues that Wouters does not describe two key codes included in a
codeset stored on a key code generator (i.e., remote control unit 3). App.
Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 10.
While Wouters describes that a set of codes are stored in the memory of
the remote control device 3 (FF 5), the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Wouters’ stored codeset includes a first key code
corresponding to a selected function of a first electronic consumer device
and a second key code corresponding to said selected function of a second
consumer device. The Examiner also has not sufficiently explained how
Wouters explicitly or inherently describes the disputed claim limitations.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Wouters description that IR receiver 16 is
coupled to a VCR and the general statement that the invention can be used
with a variety of systems and devices comprising or using a remote control,
VCR, TV, etc. Final Rejection 4; Ans. 4, 13; citing Wouters col. 1, ll. 24-
26; col. 3, ll. 21-35; FFs 3, 6. This is insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

10
For these reasons we find that the Examiner erred in erred in rejecting
claim 19 as anticipated over Wouters.
Claims 25 and 26
Independent claim 25 recites “receiving a keystroke indicator from a
remote control device . . . transmitting said key code signal from said key
code generator device to said remote control device . . .”. App. Br. 16, 37.
We interpret “said remote control device” to refer to, and be the same as, the
aforesaid “a remote control device”.
Zilog argues that Wouters does not describe (1) receiving a signal from a
remote control device and (2) transmitting a second signal to the remote
control device. App. Br. 16. Zilog argues that it is improper to ignore the
structure of the “remote control device” and find that the claimed “remote
control device” is met by separate structures for separate limitations within a
claim. Reply Br. 11.
Zilog’s arguments are persuasive and consistent with our interpretation
that “said remote control device” is the same as the aforesaid “a remote
control device”. The Examiner has not directed us to, and we can not find,
where Wouters describes receiving a keystroke indicator from a remote
control device and transmitting a keycode signal to the same remote control
device. Instead, the Examiner has directed us to Wouters’ description of
sending a keystroke indicator signal from one device (i.e., remote control
unit 3) and transmitting the keycode to a different device (i.e., RF receiving
system 12). Final Rejection 5, Ans. 5; citing Wouters col. 3, ll. 21-34;
col. 4, ll. 25-37; fig 1.
For these reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25
as anticipated over Wouters.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

11
Our interpretation of claim 25 may appear to be inconsistent with our
interpretation of claims 13 and 22 because with respect to claim 25 we
interpret the remote control as a singular device. However, claim 25 is a
method claim that requires receiving a keystroke indicator from the remote
control and also sending a keycode to the same remote control. In contrast,
claims 13 and 22 are apparatus claims that do not include any additional
structural recitations that require the remote control to be a single device or
require the components to be encased in a single housing.
Claim 26 is dependent on claim 25. App. Br. 37. For the same reason as
explained above regarding claim 25, we find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 26 as anticipated over Wouters.
Rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable over Wouters and Teskey
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 13. App. Br. 34. Claim 18 stands or
falls with claim 13 since Zilog did not argue the limitations of claim 18
separately. App. Br. 29. For the same reasons explained above with respect
to claim 13, we find that Zilog has not sustained its burden of showing that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 as unpatentable over Wouters and
Teskey.
Rejection of claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Wouters and August
Claims 20 and 21 are dependent on claim 19. Zilog does not argue the
specific limitations of claims 20 or 21, but instead argues the limitations of
claim 19. App. Br. 29. As applied by the Examiner, August does not
remedy the deficiencies of Wouters. For the same reasons as explained
above with respect to claim 19, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Wouters and August.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

12
Rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable over Wouters and Pope
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 22. App. Br. 36. Zilog does not argue
the specific limitations of claim 23, but, instead, argues the limitations of
claim 22.
Zilog argues that Wouters’ RF receiver, IR transmitter and keypad are
not on the same device. App. Br. 30. Zilog further argues that Wouters’
remote control unit 3 does not include an RF receiver. App. Br. 30. Zilog
also argues that Pope teaches against including an IR transmitter on the
handset. App. Br. 30.
As explained above with respect to claims 13 and 22, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “[a] remote control device” is an apparatus that
includes one or more components or devices. The Examiner’s finding that
Wouters’ remote control device comprises a system of devices is consistent
with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Since “[a] remote
control device” can include more than one device, Zilog’s arguments that
Wouters’ remote control unit 3 (i.e., single unit) does not include an RF
receiver is not commensurate in scope with the limitations of claims 22
and 23. Pope’s teaching against including an IR transmitter on a handset is
irrelevant since the claim language does not require all the components to be
included in a single remote control device.
For all these reasons, we find that Zilog has not sustained its burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 as unpatentable over
Wouters and Pope.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-4 and 9 as unpatentable over Pope and McNair
Representative claim 1 is independent and recites “modulating said key
code onto a carrier signal . . .”. App. Br. 32.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

13
Zilog argues that McNair does not teach modulating a key code onto a
carrier signal. App. Br. 21.
The Examiner finds that Pope does not describe modulating a key code
onto a carrier signal, but instead relies on McNair for describing modulation
of a carrier signal. Final Rejection 6; Ans. 6, 15; citing McNair col. 2,
ll. 61-65.
We agree that McNair does not describe modulating a key code, or any
code, onto a carrier signal. McNair merely describes frequency modulation
including frequency shift keying modulation. FF 10.
For this reason, we find that the Examiner erred in determining that
claims 1, 3, 4 and 9 are unpatentable over Pope and McNair.
Rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Goldstein
Claim 2 is dependent on and includes all of the limitations of claim 1.
App. Br. 32. As applied by the Examiner, Goldstein does not make up for
the deficiencies of the Pope and McNair references. For the same reasons as
explained with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has erred in
determining that claim 2 is unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Goldstein.
Rejection of claims 5 and 10 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and
Teskey
Claims 5 and 10 are directly or indirectly dependent on and include all of
the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 32-33. As applied by the Examiner,
Teskey does not make up for the deficiencies of the Pope and McNair
references. For the same reasons as explained with respect to claim 1, we
find that the Examiner has erred in determining that claims 5 and 10 are
unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Teskey.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

14
Rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and August
Claim 6 is dependent on and includes all of the limitations of claim 1.
App. Br. 32. As applied by the Examiner, August does not make up for the
deficiencies of the Pope and McNair references. For the same reasons as
explained with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has erred in
determining that claim 6 is unpatentable over Pope, McNair and August.
Rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Wouters
Claim 7 is dependent on and includes all of the limitations of claim 1.
App. Br. 32. As applied by the Examiner, Wouters does not make up for the
deficiencies of the Pope and McNair references. For the same reasons as
explained with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has erred in
determining that claim 7 is unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Wouters.
Rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Pope, McNair, Wouters and
August
Claim 8 is dependent on and includes all of the limitations of claim 1.
App. Br. 32. As applied by the Examiner, Wouters and August do not make
up for the deficiencies of the Pope and McNair references. For the same
reasons as explained with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has
erred in determining that claim 8 is unpatentable over Pope, McNair,
Wouters and August.
New Ground of Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis
for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

15
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which
the invention was made.

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pope in view of Graham.
Pope’s description of transmitting appliance control codes (i.e., keystroke
indicator) from handset 10, 50 (i.e., remote control) to base unit 12 (i.e., key
code generator) in response to selection of the appliance control via
keypad 30 meets the limitation of “receiving a keystroke indicator signal
from a remote control device. . . ”. FF 7. Pope’s description that base unit
(i.e., key code generator) processor 84 gets an infrared control code (i.e., key
code) from memory 86 based on a received appliance control code (key
stroke indicator signal) meets the limitation of “generating a key code within
a key code generator device . . .”. FF 8. Pope’s description of base unit 12
(i.e., key code generator) transmitting infrared control code (i.e., key code)
through outer window 36 to electrical appliances 14-22 meets the limitation
of “transmitting said key code signal from said key code generator device”.
FF 9.
Although Pope does not describe modulating the keycode onto a carrier
signal, attention is directed to Graham which describes modulating a digital
code or binary code onto a carrier signal. FF 11. Graham describes that
doing so offers the advantages of precluding unauthorized or accidental
activation of a control associated with the receiving means and provides an
exceptional degree of security and privacy. FFs 12-13. It would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify the method of Pope to include modulating the key code onto
a carrier signal since doing so offers the advantages of precluding
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

16
unauthorized or accidental activation and provides an exceptional degree of
security and privacy.
Zilog argues that Pope’s appliance control codes transmitted by
handset 10, 50 are not a keystroke indicator signal. App. Br. 20-21, Reply
Br. 11-12. Zilog urges a narrow interpretation of the term “keystroke
indicator signal” to mean an indication of a selected key while precluding a
control code. App. Br. 20-21, Reply Br. 11-12. During prosecution, claims
are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. Zilog’s narrow interpretation is inconsistent with its
specification. Zilog’s specification describes “[i]n one embodiment, the
indication of a pressed key is a keycode . . .”. FF 1. Since Zilog’s own
specification indicates that the keystroke indicator can be a code (i.e. a key
code), the finding that Pope’s appliance control codes meet the limitation of
a keystroke indicator signal is consistent with the broadest reasonable
interpretation.

E. Decision
Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given herein, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 13 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wouters is affirmed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14-16, 19
and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wouters is reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wouters and Teskey is affirmed.
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

17
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 20-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wouters and August
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wouters and Pope is affirmed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope and McNair is
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Goldstein is
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 5 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Teskey is
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and August is
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope, McNair and Wouters is
reversed.
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pope, McNair, Wouters and August
is reversed.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Appeal 2008-4830
Application 10/737,029

18
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

AFFIRMED IN-PART
New Ground of Rejection - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

ack

cc:

IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX 587
SUNOL, CA 94586