Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13731220 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/731,220 12/31/2012 Michael Muller LOT920050038US2 9573
(098DIV)
46321 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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 MICHAEL MULLER and CORINNE M. RYAN
Appeal 2017-001228
Application 13/731,220
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2017-001228
Application 13/731,220
INTRODUCTION
Appellants request rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
(“Board”) Decision mailed September 5, 2017 (“Decision”), in which we
affirmed the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
and the rejection of claims 1—7, 10, and 11 under the ground of non-statutory
double patenting.
ANALYSIS
In the Request for Rehearing (“Request”), Appellants allege that “the
Honorable Board appears to have misapprehended or overlooked certain
arguments presented by Appellants in the Appeal brief of May 27, 2016
(hereinafter the ‘Appeal Brief) and the Reply Brief of October 25, 2016 (the
‘Reply Brief)” (Req. 2). Specifically, Appellants contend the “Examiner
expressly defined the ‘hyperlinked skip’ of the Lynx product of Clark as
being equivalent to the claimed ‘obscured marker’” {id. at 4) and
“Appellants believe that had the Board not been misled into believing that
page 10 of Clark describes an embodiment or an example of the Lynx
product, the Board would have concluded exactly what Appellants
concluded” {id. at 6). This argument is not persuasive.
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the Board was never misled into
believing that page 10 of Clark merely described examples of the Lynx
product. Instead, in our Decision, we clearly noted that we agreed with the
Examiner that “Clark ALSO discloses embodiments of the skip hyperlink
that cannot be easily seen in common known graphical browsers” in addition
to the embodiments for Lynx users (Dec. 4). We further noted that, although
Appellants were correct in noting that Clark discloses that the Lynx “Skip
2
Appeal 2017-001228
Application 13/731,220
navigation” link must be visible, apparent, and self-explanatory, Clarks’
disclosure is not limited to Lynx products, i.e., the Skip navigation link, but
also describes “obscured” markers that “nearly everyone would miss.” {id. at
4—5). It is these other obscured embodiments that were emphasized by the
Examiner and relied upon in our Decision.
Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants’ argument that we
misapprehended certain arguments presented by Appellants.
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 changes to the Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REHEARING DENIED
3