Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2020003213 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)

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. 16/013,682 06/20/2018 Yutaka Yokokawa SCEA18008US00 2534 136155 7590 01/11/2022 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES JOHN L. ROGITZ 4420 HOTEL CIRCLE COURT SUITE 230 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 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): John@rogitz.com SCEAPatentDocket@playstation.sony.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUTAKA YOKOKAWA Appeal 2020-003213 Application 16/013,682 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing1 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a), requesting that we reconsider our Decision of October 27, 2021, wherein we reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we entered a new ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of the previously applied Kutliroff and Cronholm references and further in view of the newly applied Hilliges reference. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s 1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, pursuant to §§ 41.37, 41.41, or 41.47 are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appeal 2020-003213 Application 16/013,682 2 comments in the request, and are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments presented by Appellant. Appellant’s request is denied. APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS Appellant requests rehearing for two purposes: First, the rectitude of the dependent claim rejections argued by Appellant is brought back into play owing to the new rejection against Claim 1, and those rejections and Appellant’s arguments with respect to them should be considered. . . . Indeed, absent the Board considering Appellant’s arguments in favor of the dependent claim limitations, it is plausible and indeed likely that the examiner will repeat what Appellant believes are reversible rejections, the legitimacy of which Appellant has already paid to have considered by the Board. Second, independent Claim 9 contains a limitation that is directly related to the new reference (Hilliges), and without the Board considering Claim 9 in light of Hilliges it is plausible that the examiner will incorrectly apply Hilliges against Claim 9, churning prosecution. Request 1-2 (emphasis added). ANALYSIS The current status of Appellant’s appeal is that the Examiner’s rejection of all claims has been reversed (dependent claim rejections are reversed with the reversal of the independent claim rejection) and claim 1 has been newly rejected. See Decision 9. Only claim 1 remains before us. Thus, Appellant’s request is moot. Further, Appellant’s request is based on speculation as to what the Examiner may do in the future, and we decline Appellant’s invitation to engage in such speculation. Appeal 2020-003213 Application 16/013,682 3 DECISION Based on the record before us, we deny Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. Appellant has not persuasively identified any points the panel misapprehended or overlooked. Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted New Ground 1-15 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm 1-15 16-20 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm, Chen 16-20 1 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm, Hilliges 1 Overall Outcome 1-20 1 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1-15 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm 1-15 16-20 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm, Chen 16-20 1 103 Kutliroff, Cronholm, Hilliges 1 Overall Outcome 1-20 1 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-003213 Application 16/013,682 4 DENIED