Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201511856109 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WEI ZHANG, ADRIAN BARBU, YEFENG ZHENG, and DORIN COMANICIU ____________ Appeal 2012-004501 Application 11/856,109 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2012-004501 Application 11/856,109 2 Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) on December 29, 2014, for reconsideration of our Decision mailed October 27, 2014 (“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10–14 and 24–28. We reconsider our decision in light of Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our prior Decision. We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5–18) that Tu anticipates claim 10 for the reasons given in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. According to Appellants, our prior Decision did not consider Appellants’ argument that Examiner’s interpretation of Figures 8 and 10 of Tu is incorrect. Request 2. Our prior Decision is based upon the factual findings stated by the Examiner. In our prior Decision, we held that the probability boosting tree (PBT) in Figures 8 and 10 of Tu discloses “voxels classified as negative by said at least one cascade node are discarded” within the meaning of claim 10. Decision 3–4. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that we overlooked an argument in the Appeal Brief, nor have Appellants persuaded us of error in our decision. We decline to change our prior Decision. Appeal 2012-004501 Application 11/856,109 3 CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in our Decision mailed October 27, 2014. Accordingly, while we have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, that request is denied with respect to making any changes therein. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REHEARING DENIED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation