Ex Parte Nguyen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201612180955 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/180,955 07/28/2008 46320 7590 10/04/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kiet Q. Nguyen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. RSW920080210US1 (413) 1038 EXAMINER GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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 KIET Q. NGUYEN, ANNAPUREDDY S. REDDY, and SHUBHA S. TANGIRALA Appeal2013-000742 Application 12/180,955 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal2013-000742 Application 12/180,955 The Appellants filed their REQUEST FOR REHEARING on September 6, 2016 (hereinafter "Rehearing Request" or "Reh'g Req.") under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, seeking rehearing of our Decision mailed July 5, 2016 (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. The Appellants argue that certain portions of the Reply Brief were overlooked by the Decision. Reh'g Req. 4. The Appellants then restate their same argument previously made in the Appeal Brief that "the KPI values of the equation of paragraph [0038] of Retsina are not KPI values computed per department as asserted by Examiner." Id. at 5. As we stated in the Decision, "[i]t is reasonable to presume, as the Examiner has done, that an individual product line or department may produce a single product or product line." Dec. 4. In other words, we endorsed the Examiner's equation of products to departments. Thus, an aggregation of products is equivalent to an aggregation based on departments according to the rejection. As we stated in the Decision, "whether called a product, product line, or production line, it is reasonable to consider the teachings in Retsina as relating to a particular business unit, as the Examiner has done." Id. Accordingly, we did address this particular issue and did not overlook any argument in the Reply Brief as asserted. Additionally, to the extent the Appellant now attempts to argue "at least two of the values noted in paragraphs [0041] through [0049] of Retsina are not values relating to 'individual departments' but values relating to 2 Appeal2013-000742 Application 12/180,955 products irrespective of any production line" (id. at 6) such argument is presented for the first time in this Rehearing Request and should have been raised in the original briefs. Regardless, as stated above, we endorsed the Examiner's equation of products to departments and the inclusion of "products irrespective of any production line" does not negate the Examiner's understanding of the KPI in the equation of paragraph 38 as amounting to an overall aggregation of KPis for products and thus departments/business units as claimed. REHEARING DECISION While we have considered the Decision in light of the Request for Rehearing, and have elaborated on certain aspects of the Decision, we decline to modify it in any respect. Pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 79( d), this decision is final for the purpose of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation