Ex Parte Westphal

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2019

12361072 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/361,072 01/28/2009 Geoffry A. Westphal
34018 7590 06/26/2019
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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.
31083 .28US 1 7575
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2019 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFRY A. WESTPHAL
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1,2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 12-17. Appeal Br. 1. This appeal returns to us from a
prior Board decision, Appeal No. 2013-010168, mailed on June 22, 2016. In
that decision, we reversed the rejections of claims 12-17. For this appeal,
we affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Non-Final Action (Non-Final
Act.) mailed July 7, 2017, the Appeal Brief ( Appeal Br.) filed September 22,
2017, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed January 11, 2018, and the Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed March 9, 2018.
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to input devices for computers, including
a computer mouse that provides a touchless input interface. Spec. 1 :4--5. In
one embodiment, a mouse (e.g., 100) has sensor subsystems (e.g.,
114L/114R) that sense surface movements (e.g., user's finger movements)
representing finger gestures, such as finger taps or swipes, proximate to one
or both sides of the mouse. Spec. 4:18-21, 5:3-13, Figs. 1-2. These sensed
movements may be used by a computer to cause (1) locations on computer
display to be pointed to or (2) information on the computer display to be
moved and/or selected. Spec. 5:10-6:13.
Independent claim 12 reads as follows:
12. A computer input device, comprising:
a housing in which is carried a processing circuit;
a memory having instructions for controlling operations
of the processing circuit;
first and second touchless sensor subsystems in
communication with the processing circuit, each of the first and
second touchless sensor subsystems being adapted to monitor a
three-dimensional movement of a corresponding one of first
and second object relative to the housing occurring in spaced
proximity to the housing and to provide to the processing
circuit a signal indicative of the three-dimensional movement of
the corresponding one of the first and second objects relative to
the housing occurring in spaced proximity to the housing; and
a transmission circuit under control of the processing
circuit for issuing transmission signals to a computer in
response to the signal provided by each of the first and second
touchless sensor subsystems such that the transmission signals
correspond to the combined three-dimensional movements of
the first and second objects relative to the housing occurring in
spaced proximity to the housing as monitored by each of the
first and second touchless sensor subsystems;
2
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
wherein the first and second touchless sensor subsystems
are spaced from each other on the housing to allow for the
separate monitoring of the first and second objects and wherein
the first and second objects are different, discrete objects.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HINCKLEY AND LOW
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hinckley (US 6,559,830 Bl, issued May 6, 2003) and
Low (US 2004/0046741 Al, published Mar. 11, 2004). Non-Final Act.
5-12. Regarding independent claim 12, the Examiner found Hinckley
teaches all recited limitations, except for those related to monitoring "three-
dimensional movement" of an object relative to housing in spaced proximity
to the housing. Id. at 5-8. The Examiner turned to Low in combination
with Hinckley to teach or suggest the missing recitations and to provide a
reason to combine the teachings. Id. at 8-10.
Among other arguments, Appellant contends Low does not teach a
touchless sensor that monitors three-dimensional movement of an object as
recited in claim 12. Appeal Br. 6.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by finding
that Hinckley and Low collectively would have taught or suggested
each of the first and second touchless sensor subsystems being
adapted to monitor a three-dimensional movement of a
corresponding one of first and second object relative to the
housing occurring in spaced proximity to the housing and to
provide to the processing circuit a signal indicative of the three-
3
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
dimensional movement of the corresponding one of the first and
second objects relative to the housing occurring in spaced
proximity to the housing[?]
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner's
rejection. In our previous decision, Appeal No. 2013-010168, mailed
June 22, 2016 ("10168 Dec."), we determined that Hinckley did not
anticipate claim 12. 10168 Dec. 4--7. 3 Additionally, in a related opinion,
Appeal No. 2015-007943, mailed May 10, 2017 ("7943 Dec."), we
determined that Hinckley and Low collectively would have taught or
suggested first and second touchless sensors sensing "a direction of
movement of' a first and second finger respectively "relative to the
computer input device." See 7943 Dec. 5-9. 4 We found Low teaches what
was missing from Hinckley, and Low's teaching, when combined with
Hinckley, would have taught or suggested sensors sensing "a direction of
movement" of the fingers relative to a computer input device. Id. at 7-9
(citing Low ,r,r 26, 31-33, 39, 41, Figs. 1-2, 3E).
Now, we consider whether this same combination further teaches
monitoring "three-dimensional movement" of the first and second objects
and providing a signal indicative of the objects' "three-dimensional
movement," as claim 12 now recites. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
3 The decision is available at https://efoia.
uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2013010168-06-
20-2016-1.
4 The decision is available at https://e-
foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BP AI&flNm=fd2015007943-05-
08-2017-1.
4
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
Notably, Hinckley teaches an embodiment of a touch sensor that can
monitor or sense "when the user is sufficiently proximate the sensor"
(Hinckley 5:34--35) or "in spaced proximity to the computer input device,"
as recited. See 10168 Dec. 5---6. Thus, Appellant's contention that Low
senses a finger tap on the touch pad rather than a movement in spaced
proximity to the housing (see Appeal Br. 6) is not persuasive based on
Hinckley's and Low's combined teachings.
Even so, the proposed Hinckley/Low combination does not teach or
suggest a "sensor subsystem ... to monitor a three-dimensional movement of
... one of first and second object relative to the housing ... and to provide
... a signal indicative of the three-dimensional movement of the
corresponding one of the first and second objects," as claim 12 now recites.
See id. at 10 (Claims App'x) (emphases added). More specifically, the
Examiner contends Low teaches monitoring (1) positional data ( e.g., X and
Y) when a finger is moved across touch pad 26's surface and (2) command
data when a finger taps touch pad 26's surface (e.g., an added dimension).
Non-Final Act. 8-10 (citing Low ,r,r 22-23, 31-33, Fig. 2). Yet, a sensed
tapping movement detects movement in one direction or dimension ( e.g.,
Z direction). See Low ,r 23. Also, Low teaches monitoring a finger moving
in the direction of arrow 35 or another direction or dimension. Id. ,r 31,
Figs. 1-2. Low further discusses sensors 38 can "detect the position of the
finger 34 as [it's] moved over the active surface 32" (id.), including "the
positional data ( e.g., X and Y)" (id. ,r 33), and signals "may be used to
determine the direction [and] position ... of the object as [it's] moved
around the active surface 32" (id. ,r 32). Yet, these monitored movements
detect at best two-dimensional movement.
5
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
Low's Figures 3A through 5 also show sensors that detect or monitor
"direction of movement" at best in two-dimensions, but not "three-
dimensional movement of' an object relative to the housing, as claim 12
requires. See id., Figs 3B, D (showing detecting movement in one-
dimension direction), 3E (showing detecting movement in another
dimensional direction); see Appeal Br. 6 (stating "Low describes a system in
which sensors are used to monitor nothing more than two-dimensional
movement of an object occurring in spaced proximity to the housing")
(citing Low ,r,r 33, 38--40). Although Low may teach or suggest sensors that
monitor two-dimensional movement ( e.g., X and Y) of an object, the
Examiner does not point to a teaching in Low that further suggests a sensor
monitoring all three movements (e.g., X-Y-Z) such that the sensor provides
a signal "indicative of the three-dimensional movement" of the objects
relative to the housing as claim 12 recites. See Non-Final Act. 8-10.
As such, Low does not teach or suggest its sensors "monitor a three-
dimensional movement of ... one of first and second object[ s] relative to the
housing ... and ... provide ... a signal indicative of the three-dimensional
movement of the corresponding one of the first and second objects" as claim
12 requires. Moreover, even when combining Low's teaching with
Hinckley, the combination does not teach or suggest the above noted
limitations in claim 12.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) independent claim 12 and (2) dependent claims 12-15 and
17 for similar reasons.
6
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HINCKLEY AND ROLAND
Additionally, claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hinckley and Roland (Roland® Synthesizer SH-201
Owner's Manual (2006)). Non-Final Act. 12-19. Similar to the
obviousness rejection based on Hinckley and Low, the Examiner relies on
Hinckley for most of recitations and turns to Roland for the "three-
dimensional movement" features in claim 12. Id.
Appellant states "the Board has already determined that Hinckley
does not disclose, teach, or suggest a 'movement sensor"' but rather a
proximity sensor. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues the Examiner's
determination that Hinckley's Figures 12A-13D teach a sensor being used
"for a combined input gesture" ignores this Board determination. Id.
(quoting Non-Final Act. 22). Appellant next contends Hinckley's pinch
sensors are touched on opposing sides and do not suggest a transmission
signal corresponding to combined movements in spaced proximity to the
housing as recited. Id. at 8-9. Lastly, Appellant asserts Roland describes
monitoring a single hand's movement and cannot suggest the recited
"combined three-dimensional movements of the first and second objects" as
claim 12 recites. Id. at 9.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by
determining that Hinckley and Roland collectively would have taught or
suggested
each of the first and second touchless sensor subsystems being
adapted to monitor a three-dimensional movement of a
corresponding one of first and second object relative to the
7
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
housing occurring in spaced proximity to the housing and to
provide to the processing circuit a signal indicative of the three-
dimensional movement of the corresponding one of the first and
second objects relative to the housing occurring in spaced
proximity to the housing; and
a transmission circuit ... for issuing transmission signals
to a computer in response to the signal provided by each of the
first and second touchless sensor subsystems such that the
transmission signals correspond to the combined three-
dimensional movements of the first and second objects [?]
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection. In the 10168, Decision, we determined that Hinckley did not
anticipate claim 12. 10168 Dec. 4--7. More specifically, we stated
Hinckley's "sensor detects the proximity of a user's surface to the sensor,
but does not monitor the user's actual movement 'occurring in spaced
proximity to the housing' as recited." Id. at 6. Claim 12 since has been
amended to include sensors monitoring "a three-dimensional movement" of
objects and providing "a signal indicative of the three-dimensional
movement of the corresponding one of the first and second objects." In this
appeal, we consider whether Hinckley and Roland teach or suggest sensors
that monitor the newly recited movements.
In the previous decision, we indicated that Hinckley's sensors include
a "touch" sensor that is "touched" when "the user is sufficiently proximate
the sensor in the case of the proximity sensor." Hinckley 5:35-37,
( emphasis added) quoted in 10168 Dec. 5-6 ( quoting same). Thus, although
using the word "touch" to describe the sensors (id.), Hinckley teaches sensor
embodiments that are touchless ( e.g., sense when an object is sufficiently
8
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
proximate to the sensor). And to the extent argued (see Appeal Br. 8
(discussing Non-Final Act. 22 5)), we disagree that Hinckley fails to suggest
its sensors, including those discussed related to the "pinch" mouse, can be
"touchless sensor subsystems" as claim 12 recites.
Moreover, Roland teaches and suggests, in its figure, entitled "The
usable range of the D Beam controller," a known touchless sensor that
monitors and senses various dimensional direction of hand movement (gray
area in space with arrows) relative to a computer input device and in spaced
proximity to the device. See Roland 20, cited in Non-Final Act. 15-16.
When combining this teaching with Hinckley, as proposed, the
resulting input device includes touchless sensor subsystems ( e.g., element
692 and 696 in Figs. 9A and C), each of which can monitor object
movement in several dimensions. See Non-Final Act. 16-17. We thus are
not persuaded by Appellant's individual attack on Hinckley (see Appeal
Br. 8 (discussing Hinckley's "pinch" sensors can be touched)) or Roland
(see id. at 9 (discussing Roland describes monitoring one hand's
movement)), because these arguments do not consider what the proposed
combination suggests to those skilled in the art. See id. at 16-17.
Furthermore, regarding the disputed limitation of "the combined
three-dimensional movements of the first and second objects" (see Appeal
Br. 8-9) within
a transmission circuit ... for issuing transmission signals to a
computer in response to the signal provided by each of the first
5 The disputed statement made by the Examiner (see id.) was made in the
Response to Arguments section of the Answer rather than the formal
rejection. Compare Non-Final Act. 22 (the Response to Arguments section),
with id. at 5-10 (the Hinckley/Roland rejection).
9
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
and second touchless sensor subsystems such that the
transmission signals correspond to the combined three-
dimensional movements of the first and second objects
in claim 12 (Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x)), the Examiner relies on
Hinckley's discussion of a "pinch" mouse/sensors embodiment related to
Figures 9 A---C. Hinckley 15: 18-2 7, Figs. 9 A---C, cited in both Non-Final
Act. 15 and Ans. 25.
In contrast, Appellant discusses Figures 12A-13D, not cited
Figures 9A---C. See Appeal Br. 8. Further, as the Examiner indicates
(Ans. 25), claim 12 does not recite gestures, as disputed (Appeal Br. 8), but
rather "combined three-dimensional movements of the first and second
objects." Moreover, in the context of addressing the immediately-above
limitation, Appellant attacks Hinckley and Roland individually. See Appeal
Br. 9 (arguing "neither Hinckley nor Roland" teach this limitation). But, one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references, as is the case here. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We thus are not
persuaded by these contentions.
We further agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Hinckley and Roland teach or suggest a transmission circuit that issues
"signals correspond[ing] to the combined three-dimensional movements of
the first and second objects." See Non-Final Act. 15-16. As noted above,
both Hinckley and Roland teach and suggest its sensors ( e.g., elements 692
and 696 in Hinckley) can be touchless. Also, Roland teaches sensors can
detect up-down movement (e.g., one dimensional movement) as well as
side-to-side laterally as two-dimensional movement (see gray area in figure
10
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
that shows the usable range), suggesting monitoring simultaneous three-
dimensional movement and transmitting signals corresponding to the
combined three-dimensional object movement. See id. at 15-16 ( citing
Roland 2, 20-21 and proposing substituting Hinckley's sensors for
Roland's); Ans. 25-26 (discussing Hinckley's "pinch" mouse/sensors and
proposing substituting Roland's touchless sensor for those in Hinckley).
Appellant has not responded to the Examiner's explanation in Reply
Brief. See generally Reply Br.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 12 and claims 13-15 and 17, which are
not argued separately.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claim 16 indirectly depends from claim 12 and is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over both (1) Hinckley, Low, and Bohn
(US 2003/0006965 Al, published Jan. 9, 2003) and (2) Hinckley, Roland,
and Bohn. Non-Final Act. 19-21. These rejections are not separately
argued. See generally Appeal Br. Bohn is not relied upon to teach the
recited "three-dimensional movement" limitation. See Non-Final Act.
19-21. For reasons similar to those when addressing claim 12, we sustain
the rejection of claim 16 based on Hinckley, Roland, and Bohn, but do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16 based on Hinckley, Low, and Bohn.
11
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
NEWGROUND-
LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
Preliminarily, we note the Examiner withdrew the lack of written
description rejection of claims 12-17 that was presented in the Non-Final
Action. Non-Final Act. 3--4. Although withdrawing this rejection, the
Examiner repeated the withdrawn rejection in its entirety in the Examiner's
Answer. Compare Ans. 21 (withdrawing the rejection), with id. at 2--4
(repeating the rejection in its entirety). In Appeal No. 2018-004138, 6 we
acknowledged and agreed with Appellant that withdrawing the rejection in
this application contrasts with the action taken in Appeal No. 2018-004138
maintaining the lack of written description rejection. Reply Br. 2 ( citing
U.S. Application 13/530,6597).
For the below reasons, we newly reject claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, (pre-AIA) as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Claim 12 recites
each of the first and second touchless sensor subsystems being
adapted to monitor a three-dimensional movement of a
corresponding one of first and second object relative to the
housing occurring in spaced proximity to the housing and to
provide to the processing circuit a signal indicative of the three-
dimensional movement of the corresponding one of the first and
second objects relative to the housing occurring in spaced
proximity to the housing[.]
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
6 Appeal No. 2018-004138 concerns U.S. Application No. 13/530,659.
7 We presume Appellant's reference to U.S. Application 12/361,072 (Reply
Br. 2) was a typographical error.
12
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
The Specification does not describe the above claimed invention in
sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the
inventor had possession of the claimed invention and thus satisfy the written
description requirement. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Appellant acknowledges the Specification "does not use the exact
term 'three-dimensional movement[.]"' Appeal Br. 4. The Specification
describes optical sensor subsystem 114L/114R can "determine direction,
magnitude, and/ or speed of movement of the surface relative to the computer
input device 100." Spec. 5:7-9, Figs. 1-2. The Specification states "the
surface movement information reported back by the sensor subsystems
114L/114R can be representative of finger gestures, such as finger taps,
fingers swipes, etc.[,] proximate to one or both of the left and right sides of
the computer input device 100." J d. at 5: 10-13. As indicated by the
Examiner in the withdrawn rejection (Non-Final Act. 3), one skilled in the
art would have understood these described gestures are movements in two
dimensions (e.g., X-Y directions), such as finger swipes, or in another
dimension ( e.g., Z direction), such as finger taps.
These passages support a sensor monitoring an object's movement in
each of three dimensions relative to the housing. However, the Specification
does not described "monitor[ing] a three-dimensional movement of a
corresponding one of first and second object relative to the housing ... and
to provide to the processing circuit a signal indicative of the three-
dimensional movement of the corresponding one of the first and second
objects." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x) (emphases added). That is, one
skilled in the art reading the above passages in the Specification would have
13
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
concluded the inventor at best had possession of sensing a finger's or
object's two-dimensional direction of movement ( e.g., X-Y movements of
a finger swipe) relative to the input device but not the recited "three-
dimensional movement" of an object "relative to the housing" in claim 12.
To be sure and as Appellant indicates (id. at 4), the Specification
further states a "computer can be programmed to map any sensed gesture(s)
to any action on the computer" (Spec. 5 :22-23 ( emphasis added)) and
includes "etc." when providing examples of finger gestures (Spec. 5: 12).
Examples of sensed gestures include: (1) "a simultaneous double tap gesture
being performed on both sides of the computer input device 100,"
(2) "double swipe down gesture performed on at least one side of the
computer input," and (3) "a tapping gesture being performed on the right
side of the computer input device 100 with a surface being sensed as being
anchored on the left side of the computer input device 100." Spec. 6:2-3, 6-
7, 10-12. Yet, like the above discussion, the Specification's description of
these sensed gestures, at best, constitutes sufficient detail for one skilled in
the art to conclude reasonably that the inventor had possession of sensing an
object's two-dimensional direction of movement ( e.g., a finger's downward
swipe).
Based on the above description, Appellant contends that "those of
skill in the art will understand that the described sensor subsystems must be
able [to] sense motion in the three-dimensional space proximate to the
device to thereby, at a minimum, distinguish between these different types of
gestures." Reply Br. 3. This contention merely constitutes unsupported
attorney argument. It is well settled that such conclusory arguments cannot
take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See In re Huang,
14
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Also, as previously noted, the
Specification may suggest other gestures or dimensional movement can be
monitored. See Spec. 5: 12 ( stating "such as finger taps, finger swipes,
etc."), 5:22 (stating "any sensed gesture(s)"), 5:23 (stating "[b]y way of
example only")). But, even if the Specification and its examples suggest the
obviousness of sensing "three-dimensional movement" of objects "relative to
the housing" as recited in claim 12, this suggestion does not establish
sufficiently that the inventor had possession of this claimed invention. See
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (stating "a description that merely renders the
invention obvious does not satisfy the [written-description] requirement")
(citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
For the above reasons, we reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (pre-AIA) as failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 13-17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12 (Appeal Br. 11
(Claims App'x)) and are rejected also as failing to comply with the written
description requirement for reasons similar to those discussed previously
when addressing claim 12.
DECISION
12-15 and 17 § 103
Hinckley and
12-15 and 17
Low
12-15 and 17 § 103
Hinckley and
12-15 and 17
Roland
16 § 103
Hinckley, Low,
16
and Bohn
Hinckley,
16 § 103 Roland, and 16
Bohn
15
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
This decision also contains a new ground of rejection for claims 12-
17 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b).
Section 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section
41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
16
Appeal 2018-004110
Application 12/361,072
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
17