2020005787 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

Michael Campagna

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 2021

2020005787 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

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. 13/251,985 10/03/2011 Michael Campagna CMPNA01 6281 151174 7590 03/30/2021 Addy Hart P.C. Robert Hart 401 North Michigan Avenue Suite 1200-1 Chicago, IL 60611 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2021 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): gbgulliver@addyhart.com meredith@addyhart.com robert@addyhart.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL CAMPAGNA Appeal 2020-005787 Application 13/251,985 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appealed from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–69. See Final Act. 1. Oral arguments were heard in this case on February 19, 2021 and the Board issued its Decision on March 2, 2021. Appellant filed their Request for Rehearing on March 15, 2021. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Michael Campagna. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005787 Application 13/251,985 2 Appellant asserts in its Request that the Board failed to address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–60 as failing to comply with the written description. As noted in Appellant’s Reply Brief, however, the rejections under § 112 were withdrawn by the Examiner. Reply Br. 3, see also Ans. 14–15. Accordingly, those rejections were not before us. We need not and cannot address rejections that are withdrawn by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellant’s Rehearing Request is DENIED as moot. DENIED