2020001848 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2021)

Milt Mathis

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 19, 2021

2020001848 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 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. 13/877,892 04/04/2013 Milt D. Mathis 1149-001US01 7608 28863 7590 02/19/2021 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. 1625 RADIO DRIVE SUITE 100 WOODBURY, MN 55125 EXAMINER SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2021 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MILT D. MATHIS Appeal 2020-001848 Application 13/877,892 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request”) dated January 29, 2021, of the Decision on Appeal dated November 30, 2020 (“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–12, 15, and 18–33. See Decision 8. Upon consideration of Appellant’s Request, we do not modify our opinion. REQUEST FOR REHEARING A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the [Patent Trial Appeal 2020-001848 Application 13/877,892 2 and Appeal Board, hereinafter “Board”].” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). In addition, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement with a decision without setting forth points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering its Decision. The proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. ANALYSIS Pages 2–3 of the Request assert the Board erred in finding that the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying the apparatus disclosed by Erskine, based on the teachings of Rundquist, is supported by rational underpinnings. Pages 6–7 of the Decision address this argument and cite the specific paragraphs in Erskine relied upon in support of the rationale. Thus, Appellant’s argument in the Request merely reiterates an argument already addressed in the Decision and contends the Board erred in its conclusion. Such an expression of disagreement with the result of the Board’s review does not identify any point believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appeal 2020-001848 Application 13/877,892 3 CONCLUSION The Request is denied. Final Outcome on Appeal after Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 19, 21, 26–31 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist 1, 2, 19, 21, 26–31 4, 5, 7–12, 23, 24 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist, Kirpichnikov, Lewis 4, 5, 7–12, 23, 24 6, 25, 32 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist, Kirpichnikov, Lewis, Hatem 6, 25, 32 15, 18, 20 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist, Agrawal 15, 18, 20 22 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist Centanni 22 33 103(a) Erskine, Rundquist, Kirpichnikov, Lewis, Hatem 33 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–12, 15, 18–33 DENIED