Ex Parte Stanek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

13910303 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

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.
13/910,303 06/05/2013 Joseph F. Stanek 83353482 1029
28395 7590 01/22/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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 @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH F. STANEK, SIAMAK HASHEMI, RAMY BOCTOR,
JOHN A. LOCKWOOD, and LISA SCOTT
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
On January 2, 2018, Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing
(“Request”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision on Appeal
(“Decision”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), mailed
November 1, 2017. In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1—20.
In the Request, Appellants argue the “Board has erred in affirming the
examiner's rejections,” because the Examiner “impermissibly uses the
claims as a guide for selectively modifying the prior art,” and “the
Examiner's reasoning is derived from the teachings of Applicant.” (Request
2.) However, we have already considered this argument and have not found
it persuasive. (Decision 3—4.) Therefore, having fully considered the
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
arguments in the Request, on this record, we are not persuaded that we have
misapprehended or overlooked any points raised by Appellants. We find
none of Appellants’ arguments are persuasive that our Decision was in error.
We have reconsidered our Decision, but decline to grant the relief requested.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
DENIED
2