14478473 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2019)

Taylor, Kendrick J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 18, 2019

14478473 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2019)

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. 14/478,473 09/05/2014 Kendrick J. Taylor 83456081 3938 28395 7590 10/18/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER FANTU, YALKEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KENDRICK J. TAYLOR and MARK J. FERREL ____________ Appeal 2018-008804 Application 14/478,473 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh'g”), dated September 3, 2019, of our Decision, mailed July 3, 2019 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1– 4, 8, 11–16, and 18. We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error in the disposition of the disputed §§ 102 and 103 rejections. We have reviewed the arguments set forth by Appellant in the Request for Rehearing. Appellant contends that “the Board has ignored the limitation” in claim 1 regarding the handshaking communications “which Appeal 2018-008804 Application 14/478,473 2 EVSE would communicate with the vehicle for the EVSE to initiate charging of the vehicle” (Req. Reh’g 2), and that Nitzberg does not teach or suggest this feature (Req. Reh’g 3). Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s findings are silent about this feature (Req. Reh’g 3, 4) and concludes that Bertness also does “not anticipate [this] limitation” (Req. Reh’g 4). These arguments are not persuasive. As we stated in our Decision, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred from Nitzberg that the testing device may be located on the EV itself, communicating with the vehicle (Decision 4). Thus, Appellant’s argument that we adopted an unreasonable claim construction (Req. Reh’g 3) is not persuasive for reasons set out in the Decision (Decision 3, 4). Furthermore, as our precedents make clear, the analysis of obviousness under § 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–18 (2007). Appellant’s statements with respect to the obviousness rejection are conclusory and are considered to be no more than general allegations of patentability that are not considered substantive separate patentability arguments. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). Accordingly, no persuasive merit is present in Appellant’s conclusory argument with respect to the obviousness rejection (see, Decision 4). Appeal 2018-008804 Application 14/478,473 3 Therefore, we decline to reconsider our decision to affirm the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections of the appealed claims. This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our Decision and is final for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1). CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on the foregoing, this Request for Rehearing is denied with respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejections therein. Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims Basis Granted Denied 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 § 102 Nitzberg 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 § 103 Nitzberg, Bertness 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 Overall Outcome 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 § 102 Nitzberg 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 § 103 Nitzberg, Bertness 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 Overall Outcome 1–4, 8, 11–16, 18 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)(v)(2010). DENIED