Ex Parte Park et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201714290672 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) 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. 14/290,672 05/29/2014 Lemuel S. Park 081796.0116 6768 5073 7590 11/30/2017 RAKFR ROTTST T P EXAMINER 2001 ROSS AVENUE KE, PENG SUITE 700 DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEMUEL S. PARK and JIMMY YU Appeal 2017-010878 Application 14/290,6721 Patent 8,190,594 Technology Center 3900 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Filed May 29, 2014, seeking to reissue U.S. Patent 8,190,594 issued May 29, 2012, based on application 12/436,704, filed May 6, 2009. Appeal 2017-010878 Application 14/290,672 Patent 8,190,594 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brawer et al. (US 7,801,881 Bl; issued Sept. 21, 2010) (“Brawer”) and Boone et al. (US 2007/0198459; published Aug. 23, 2007 (“Boone”). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1,15, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Perry et al. (US 2007/0073758 Al; published Mar. 29, 2007) (“Perry”). 4. The Examiner rejected claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. 5. The Examiner rejected claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter? 2 Appeal 2017-010878 Application 14/290,672 Patent 8,190,594 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brawer and Boone? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1,15, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Perry? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1^46under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an improper recapture of surrendered subject matter? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration? ANALYSIS Appellants do not provide any arguments regarding: (a) the rejection of claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter; (b) the rejection of claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brawer and Boone; and (c) the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Perry. See App. Br. 5—11. If a ground of rejection stated by the Examiner is not addressed in the Appellants’ Appeal Brief, Appellants have waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02. Therefore, we affirm the aforementioned rejections pro forma. As the Examiner has already established that each of claims 1—46 are unpatentable under plural sections of the Patent Act, we do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—46 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as (1) being an improper recapture or (2) being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. 3 Appeal 2017-010878 Application 14/290,672 Patent 8,190,594 CONCLUSION On the record before us, the Examiner establishes that claims 1—46 are not patentable. DECISION We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—46 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—46 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,15, and 31 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1— 46 as being an improper recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251, or being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251. 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). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation