Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

12154789 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/154,789 05/27/2008 Amit V. Patel 911 9567
7590 01/23/2013
AMIT V. PATEL
2289 Willowway Street
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
EXAMINER
JACKSON, BRANDON LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2013 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 AMIT V. PATEL
________________

Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
final decision rejecting claims 1-17. The Examiner rejects under 35 U.S.C. 3
§ 103(a) claims 1, 2 and 5-15 as being unpatentable over Longfellow (US 4
2,191,283, issued Feb. 20, 1940) and Bonutti (US 5,848,979, issued Dec. 15, 5
1998); and claims 3, 4, 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Longfellow, 6

1 The Appellant is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

2
Bonutti and Picolet (US 4,492,225, issued Jan. 8, 1985). Counsel for the 1
Appellant presented oral argument on December 11, 2012. We have 2
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 3
We AFFIRM. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 4
(2010), we designate our affirmance of the rejection of claim 13 as being a 5
new ground of rejection under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 6
Longfellow and Bonutti. 7
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 8
1. An apparatus for immobilizing an 9
injured joint of a body comprising: 10
a first plate adapted for engaging a limb of 11
the body, the first plate having a first end portion; 12
a second plate adapted for engaging a body 13
part to which the limb is connected via the injured 14
joint, the second plate having a second end 15
portion; 16
a hinge for pivotably connecting an end 17
portion of the first plate and an end portion of the 18
second plate; and 19
a telescoping rod having a first rod end and 20
an opposite rod end, 21
wherein the first rod end extends from the 22
first plate and the opposite rod end extends from 23
the second plate, and wherein the telescoping rod 24
maintains the first plate in a fixed position relative 25
to the second plate. 26
27
ISSUES 28
The Appellant argues the rejections of claims 2, 5-12 and 15 solely on 29
the basis of arguments addressed primarily to the rejection of claim 1. (See 30
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

3
App. Br. 29-30). Therefore, claim 1 is representative of the grouping 1
including claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 15. The Appellant does not appear to 2
explain how claims 3, 4, 16 or 17 might be patentable if claim 1 is not 3
patentable. (Id.) Therefore, only arguments relating to the rejections of 4
claims 1, 13 and 14 need be addressed. 5
The Examiner finds that Longfellow describes an apparatus including 6
every limitation of claim 1 except the use of a telescopic rod to maintain the 7
first plate in a fixed position relative to the second plate. (Ans. 5). The 8
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute a 9
telescopic rod structurally similar to the longitudinally extending lower cuff 10
arm described by Bonutti for a turnbuckle 34 in the apparatus described by 11
Longfellow. (Id.) The Appellant argues that “neither Bonutti nor 12
Longfellow show, teach or suggest a telescoping rod between two ‘mutually’ 13
hinged plates.” (Reply Br. 5 (underlining in original)). The Appellant also 14
argues that the apparatus including limitations recited in dependent claims 15
13 and 14 would not have been obvious. (App. Br. 30-34; Reply Br. 5-9). 16
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant have been 17
considered. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010). 18
Three issues are dispositive of this appeal: 19
First, do the evidence and technical reasoning underlying 20
the rejection of claim 1 adequately support the conclusion that 21
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to 22
substitute a telescopic rod structurally similar to the 23
longitudinally extending lower cuff arm described by Bonutti 24
for the turnbuckle 34 in the apparatus described by Longfellow? 25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

4
Second, has the Examiner correctly interpreted the term 1
“detachable” as used in claim 13 sufficiently broadly to 2
encompass susceptibility to detachment by removing pins from 3
one or more of the hinge brackets 37, 38 of Longfellow’s 4
apparatus? 5
Third, has the Examiner correctly interpreted the term 6
“adjustment mechanism” as used in claim 14 sufficiently 7
broadly to encompass a “hinge” 36 of Longfellow’s apparatus? 8
9
FINDINGS OF FACT 10
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 11
preponderance of the evidence. 12
1. We adopt and incorporate by reference the findings of the 13
Examiner at page 4, line 16 of the Answer (starting with “Longfellow 14
discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) . . .”) through page 5, line 3 of the Answer 15
(ending with “. . . is secured to concave surfaces (3, 25).”). 16
2. Longfellow describes a splint for holding an upper limb in a 17
fixed position with respect to the body. (Longfellow 1, first column, ll. 1-5). 18
The splint includes an anchor member 1 and an upper support member 20 19
hinged at respective ends by a hinge 21. (Longfellow 1, second column, ll. 20
5-9). Each of the anchor member 1 and the upper support member 20 21
incorporates a plate. 22
3. Longfellow’s splint includes a hinge bracket 37 secured to the 23
upper arm support 20 by a rivet 32. (Longfellow 1, second column, ll. 45-24
47). 25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

5
4. Longfellow’s splint also includes a hinge bracket 38 secured to 1
the plate 39 by a rivet 40. (Longfellow 1, second column, ll. 47-48). 2
Figures 1 and 2 of Longfellow depict the hinge bracket 38 as being secured 3
in a back surface of the anchor member 1, that is, on a surface opposite that 4
adapted for engaging the limb. 5
5. Longfellow’s splint also includes a wing bolt 41 “adapted to be 6
threaded into openings 43 or 44 in [a] reinforcing strip 29 and anchor 7
member 1 to vary the distance of the hinge bracket 38 from the hinge 21 and 8
thereby effect a rough adjustment of the angular position of the upper arm 9
support or cradle 20 with respect to the anchor member 1.” (Longfellow 1, 10
second column, l. 51 – 2, first column, l. 3). 11
6. Since the hinge bracket 38 is secured to the plate 39 by a rivet 12
40, there is a sound basis for belief that the plate 39 must be susceptible of 13
movement relative to the anchor member 1 when the wing bolt 41 is 14
loosened to permit variation in the distance of the hinge bracket 38 from the 15
hinge 21. This fact implies a sound basis for belief that only the wing bolt 16
41 secures the plate 39 to the anchor member 1. Since Longfellow describes 17
the wing bolt 41 as being “adapted to be threaded into openings 43 or 44 in 18
the reinforcing strip 29 and anchor member 1” (id.), there is a sound basis 19
for belief that the wing bolt 41 also is adapted to be threaded out of the 20
anchor member 1. These facts imply that the plate 39 and the hinge bracket 21
38 are detachable from the anchor member 1 without damaging either the 22
hinge bracket 38 or the anchor member 1. As of the date of this opinion, the 23
Appellant has offered no evidence or argument which might contradict these 24
facts. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977). 25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

6
7. A strut or brace including a turnbuckle 34 is pivotably secured 1
at its ends 35, 36 to the hinge brackets 37, 38. (Longfellow 1, second 2
column, ll. 42-45). 3
8. A “turnbuckle” is a “device that usually consists of a link with 4
screw threads at both ends, that is turned to bring the ends closer together.” 5
(MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-webster 6
.com/dictionary/turnbuckle (last visited Dec. 26, 2012). As depicted in 7
Figure 2 of Longfellow, the turnbuckle 34 consists of two eyelets with 8
threaded ends threaded into opposite ends of a frame. Based on the 9
depiction of the turnbuckle 34 in Figure 2 of Longfellow, the Examiner has a 10
sound basis for belief that turning either of the two eyelets relative to the 11
axis of the screw threads would cause that eyelet to either extend further 12
from the frame or retract further into the frame. The extension or retraction 13
of the eyelet relative to the frame would correspondingly lengthen or shorten 14
the turnbuckle as a whole. The Appellant offers no evidence or argument 15
which might contradict this belief. 16
9. Based on an inspection of Figure 2 of Longfellow, the 17
Examiner has a sound basis for belief that the hinge brackets 37, 38 require 18
pins to secure the ends 35, 36 of the turnbuckle 34 to the hinge brackets 37, 19
38. The Appellant offers no evidence or argument which might contradict 20
this belief. 21
10. Longfellow is silent regarding the pins securing the ends 35, 36 22
of the turnbuckle 34 to the hinge brackets 37, 38. The Examiner has not 23
articulated a sound basis for belief that the pins necessarily can be removed 24
from the hinge brackets 37, 38 without damage to the hinge brackets 37, 38. 25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

7
11. The Examiner correctly finds that “hinge” 36, that is, the 1
combination of the hinge bracket 38 and the pin securing the end 36 of the 2
turnbuckle 34 to the hinge bracket 38, allows a user to adjust the angular 3
orientation of the anchor member 1 and the upper support member 20. (See 4
Ans. 10, ll. 2-6). The combination of the hinge bracket 38 and the pin 5
allows a user to adjust the angular orientation by enabling the anchor 6
member 1 and the upper support member 20 to pivot relative to each other 7
about the hinge 21 without having to bend either the frame or the eyelets of 8
the turnbuckle 34. 9
12. The combination of the hinge brackets 37, 38 and the pins 10
securing the ends 35, 36 of the turnbuckle 34 to the hinge brackets 37, 38 11
facilitates locking the anchor member 1 and the upper support member 20. 12
The combination does this by allowing the threaded portions of the eyelets 13
of the turnbuckle to maintain axial alignment with the frame while 14
continuing to engage the anchor member 1 and the upper support member 15
20. 16
13. Bonutti describes an orthosis 20 including a base 22. The base 17
22 includes a lower cuff arm 24 adapted to extend along a lower portion of a 18
patient’s arm. (Bonutti, col. 2, ll. 37-39 and col. 6, ll. 40-41). 19
14. The lower cuff arm 24 of Bonutti’s orthosis 20 includes an 20
extension section 158 telescopically received in a base section 156. The 21
extension section 158 moves axially into and out of the base section 156 to 22
lengthen or shorten the lower cuff arm 24. (Bonutti, col. 6, ll. 40-44 and 46-23
49). The relative movement between the extension section 158 and the base 24
section 156 enables the orthosis 20 to accommodate patients having arms of 25
different lengths. (Bonutti, col. 6, ll. 53-55). 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

8
15. The lower cuff arm 24 of Bonutti’s orthosis 20 includes a bolt 1
for pressing the extension section 158 against the base section 156 to lock 2
the extension section 158 and the base section 156 against axial movement 3
relative to each other. (Bonutti, col. 6, ll. 56-67). 4
16. The lower cuff arm 24 described by Bonutti is interchangeable 5
with the turnbuckle 34 described by Longfellow. In particular, each includes 6
elongated bodies moveable in an axial direction relative to one another. 7
Although Longfellow’s turnbuckle 34 relies on friction between engaged 8
screw threads, whereas Bonutti’s lower cuff arm 24 makes use of a bolt for 9
pressing the relatively moveable bodies together, each is capable of 10
maintaining its overall length during ordinary use. Each may be adjusted to 11
increase or decrease in overall length by way of relative axial movement 12
between the elongated bodies. (Compare FF 9 with FF 15 and 16). 13
14
ANALYSIS 15
First Issue 16
Longfellow describes an apparatus for immobilizing an injured joint 17
of a body including a turnbuckle 34 having a first rod end 36 extending from 18
a first plate 1 and an opposite rod end 35 extending from a second plate 20, 19
wherein the turnbuckle 34 maintains the first plate 1 in a fixed position 20
relative to the second plate 20. (FF 1-4, 7 and 8). Bonutti describes a 21
telescoping rod, that is, a lower cuff arm 24. The telescoping rod described 22
by Bonutti is interchangeable with Longfellow’s turnbuckle 34. (FF 14-16). 23
The structure and function of the two structures is sufficiently simple, and 24
the interchangeability of the two structures would have been sufficiently 25
manifest, that the equivalence would have been apparent to one of ordinary 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

9
skill having enough sophistication to understand the disclosures of 1
Longfellow and Bonutti. 2
Longfellow’s turnbuckle 34 itself constitutes a telescoping rod. 3
Therefore, Longfellow anticipates claim 1. Even were one to assume that 4
the turnbuckle 34 were not a telescoping rod, however, the Examiner 5
correctly concluded that it would have been obvious from the combined 6
teachings of Longfellow and Bonutti to substitute a telescoping rod for the 7
turnbuckle. 8
“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that 9
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the 10
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR 11
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Bonutti teaches use of 12
the telescoping rod (that is, the lower cuff arm 24) for a purpose other than 13
to maintain a first plate of an immobilizing apparatus in a fixed position 14
relative to a second plate of the apparatus. (See FF 14). Nevertheless, it 15
would have been obvious merely to substitute a known telescoping rod of 16
the type described by Bonutti, fulcrumed at its ends to the hinge brackets 37, 17
38, for the structurally equivalent turnbuckle 34 described by Longfellow. 18
(See Ans. 10, ll. 3-5). The Appellant has not suggested any reason why the 19
proposed substitution would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in 20
the art. Neither has the Appellant suggested a reason why the proposed 21
substitution might have yielded unpredictable results. 22
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

10
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-15 under 1
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longfellow and Bonutti. Since the 2
Appellant does not appear to explain how claims 3, 4, 16 or 17 might be 3
patentable if claim 1 is not patentable, we also sustain the rejection of claims 4
3, 4, 16 and 17 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longfellow, 5
Bonutti and Picolet. 6
7
Second Issue 8
Claim 13 recites the “apparatus of claim 10, wherein the telescoping 9
support mechanism comprises a telescoping rod that is detachable from at 10
least one of the first plate and the second plate.” (Emphasis added.) The 11
Examiner appears to interpret the term “detachable” sufficiently broadly to 12
encompass both non-destructive and destructive removal of one part from 13
union with another. (See Ans. 9, lines 6-17). Relying on this interpretation, 14
the Examiner concludes that “the Longfellow plates (1, 20) obviously are 15
detachable from the rod (34) by removing the pins that are securing the ends 16
of the rods to the plates (1, 20).” (Ans. 9, ll. 15-17; see also id. at 5, ll. 9-17
10). The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term 18
“detachable” is unreasonably broad. (See Reply Br. 6). 19
The Appellant does not formally define the term “detachable” in the 20
Specification. In view of this, the term “detachable” may be interpreted as 21
broadly as the ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art 22
reasonably would permit. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 23
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 24
1997). The Examiner correctly finds that the ordinary usage of the term 25
“detachable” encompasses structure susceptible of removal from association 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

11
or union with something. (See Ans. 9, ll. 8-10, citing THE AMERICAN 1
HERITAGE® STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2
1995)). 3
Nevertheless, our reviewing court disfavors any claim interpretation 4
which would render a claim term superfluous. Stumbo v. Eastman 5
Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As the Appellant 6
points out (see Reply Br. 6), any structure may be removed from union with 7
any other structure provided one is willing to tolerate a sufficient level of 8
destruction of one or both structures. Therefore, the Examiner’s 9
interpretation of the term “detachable” encompasses essentially every 10
structure which can be thought of as having at least two parts. The term so 11
interpreted does not limit claim 1 in any practical sense. In other words, the 12
Examiner’s interpretation renders the term “detachable” superfluous. Since 13
the Appellant proposes a reasonable interpretation of the term “detachable,” 14
namely, as encompassing only structure susceptible of non-destructive 15
removal from association or union with something (see Reply Br. 6), we 16
conclude that the Examiner’s broader interpretation of the term is 17
unreasonable. 18
Since the Examiner has not articulated a sound basis for belief that the 19
pins necessarily can be removed from Longfellow’s hinge brackets 37, 38 20
without damage to the hinge brackets 37, 38 (FF 10), the Examiner has not 21
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Longfellow teaches a 22
telescoping support mechanism comprising a telescoping rod that is 23
detachable from at least one of the first plate 1 and the second plate 20. 24
Neither has the Examiner articulated reasoning with some rational 25
underpinning to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art might have had 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

12
reason to modify Longfellow’s hinge brackets 37, 38 and pins so as to 1
satisfy the limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 2
for the reasons articulated by the Examiner. 3
That said, we enter new grounds of rejection of claim 13 under 4
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longfellow and Bonutti. There exists 5
sound basis for belief that Longfellow’s hinge bracket 38 is detachable from 6
the first plate 1. (FF 4-6). Since the only attachment between the turnbuckle 7
34 and the plate 1 described by Longfellow is through the hinge bracket 38, 8
there exists sound basis for belief that Longfellow’s turnbuckle 34 is 9
detachable from the first plate 1. (Id.) The mere substitution of a 10
telescoping rod of the type described by Bonutti for Longfellow’s turnbuckle 11
34 would not have changed the nature of the attachment between the hinge 12
bracket 38 and the plate 1. Therefore, the limitation set forth explicitly in 13
claim 13 would have flowed naturally from the teachings of Longfellow and 14
the nature of the modification proposed by the Examiner. See Ex parte 15
Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985)(“The fact that appellant has 16
recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following 17
the suggestions of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the 18
differences would otherwise be obvious.”). On the basis of this new ground, 19
we sustain the rejection of claim 13 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 20
over Longfellow and Bonutti. 21
22
Third Issue 23
Claim 14 recites the “apparatus of claim 10, further comprising an 24
adjustment mechanism on the back surface of the first plate for receiving an 25
end of the telescoping support mechanism, wherein the adjustment 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

13
mechanism facilitates locking the first plate and the second plate at a desired 1
orientation with respect to each other.” The Examiner finds that “[h]inge 2
(36) on the rear of the first plate (1) serves as an adjustment mechanism 3
because it adjusts the angular orientation of the first and second plates (1, 4
20) relative to one another.” (Ans. 5, ll. 6-9). The Appellant argues that “at 5
least because Longfellow’s hinge (36)/bracket 38 has only fixed parts, but 6
has no moving or adjustable parts, it cannot be the adjustable support 7
mechanism recited by [the Appellant’s] claim 14.” (Reply Br. 8 8
(underlining in original)). 9
Claim 14 recites an “adjustment mechanism” rather than an 10
“adjustable support mechanism.” The Appellant does not point out any 11
formal definition of the term “adjustment” or “adjustment mechanism” in 12
the Specification. Turning to ordinary usage, see In re ICON Health & 13
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the term “adjustment” is 14
sufficiently broad to encompass the process of bringing components into a 15
proper relationship. (See THE FREE ONLINE DICTIONARY, http://www 16
.thefreedictionary.com/adjust (last visited January 2, 2013)(citing THE 17
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2009)(“adjust,” 18
def. 2) (“to bring into proper relationship”)))). This definition of the term is 19
consistent with the usage of the term in the Specification, since the 20
Appellant fails to identify any description or illustration of an “adjustment 21
mechanism” in the Specification other than an echo of the claim language at 22
issue. (See, e.g., App. Br. 9, citing Spec., para. 0013). 23
The Examiner’s finding that “[h]inge (36) on the rear of the first plate 24
(1) serves as an adjustment mechanism because it adjusts the angular 25
orientation of the first and second plates (1, 20) relative to one another” 26
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

14
(Ans. 5, ll. 6-9) is correct. (FF 11). Broadly speaking, allowing the angular 1
orientation of the anchor member 1 and the upper support member 20 to 2
change with respect to one another is an adjustment because such change in 3
the angular orientation allows the user to bring the anchor member 1 and the 4
upper support member 20 into a proper angular relationship. In addition, the 5
combination of the hinge brackets 37, 38 and the pins securing the ends 35, 6
36 of the turnbuckle 34 to the hinge brackets 37, 38 facilitates locking the 7
anchor member 1 and the upper support member 20. (FF 12). In view of the 8
structural and functional equivalence between the lower cuff arm 24 9
described by Bonutti and the turnbuckle 34 described by Longfellow (FF 10
16), the mere substitution of a telescoping rod of the type described by 11
Bonutti for Longfellow’s turnbuckle 34 would not have sacrificed the 12
capacity of the hinge bracket 38 and the associated pin to act as an 13
adjustment mechanism as that term is used in claim 14. 14
Therefore, the limitation set forth explicitly in claim 14 would have 15
flowed naturally from the teachings of Longfellow and the nature of the 16
modification proposed by the Examiner. See Obiaya, 227 USPQ at 60. We 17
sustain the rejection of claim 14 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 18
Longfellow and Bonutti. 19
20
DECISION 21
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17. 22
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2010), we 23
designate the affirmance of the decision to reject claim 13 a new ground of 24
rejection under § 103(a) over Longfellow and Bonutti. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

15
(2010) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph 1
shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 2
Regarding the new ground of rejection, Appellant must, WITHIN 3
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, exercise one of 4
the following options with respect to the new ground of rejection, in order to 5
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: 6
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an 7
appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or 8
new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or 9
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the 10
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be 11
remanded to the examiner. . . . 12
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the 13
proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board 14
upon the same record. . . . 15
Should the Appellant elect to prosecute further before the Examiner 16
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1) (2010), in order to preserve the right to 17
seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed 18
rejections, the effective date of the affirmance will be deferred until the 19
prosecution before the Examiner concludes unless one or more affirmed 20
rejections are overcome. 21
If the Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does 22
not result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, 23
this case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final 24
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing.25
Appeal 2010-011749
Application 12/154,789

16
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 1
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). 2
3
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 4
5
6
Klh 7