Chad Williams

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 24, 2021

2020006178 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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. 15/902,768 02/22/2018 Chad Williams PAK4-62562- USNP/BAO1681US 9060 44639 7590 06/24/2021 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER PATEL, NEEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2021 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte CHAD WILLIAMS ____________ Appeal 2020-006178 Application 15/902,768 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a), Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing on June 3, 2021 (“Req. Reh’g”) seeking reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal dated April 16, 2021 (“Dec.”). We have jurisdiction over the Request for Rehearing under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 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. 37 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appeal 2020-006178 Application 15/902,768 2 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). 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. Appellant requests that “the Board reconsider the definition of fractal adopted in the present appeal,” because “the definition adopted by the Board is not in accord with generally accepted definition[s] of the term ‘fractal geometry’ in which scalability is a requirement.” Req. Reh’g 2. However, as explained in the Decision, our construction of the claim term “fractal geometry” is based upon the Specification’s express identification of fractal geometry 78 in Figure 2, which includes a repeating pattern but lacks a pattern of varying scales, rather than upon the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “fractal geometry” according to dictionary definitions. Dec. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 12). It is axiomatic that during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant submits that “[t]he Board’s definition of fractal is based on a misconceived impression of FIG. 2 of the present application.” Req. Reh’g 2. In particular, Appellant contends that Figure 2 shows “a repeating pattern” and “[a]ny ambiguity that might be alleged as to what is depicted in FIG. 2 is eliminated by the textual description in the [S]pecification where the figure is described as representing a ‘fractal geometry’.” Id. at 2–3. Thus, Appellant appears to argue that Figure 2 of the Specification is ambiguous (or open to more than one interpretation) as to whether the repeating pattern of backup ring 46 as depicted in Figure 2 has varying Appeal 2020-006178 Application 15/902,768 3 scales, and in view of this alleged ambiguity, fractal geometry 78 as depicted in Figure 2 should be deemed to have a pattern of varying scales in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “fractal geometry.” We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because Appellant does not point out how fractal geometry 78 as depicted in Figure 2 is ambiguous so as to be interpreted to show a repeating pattern of varying scales, in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “fractal geometry.” In other words, as set forth in our Decision, and notwithstanding the Specification’s reference to known examples of fractal patterns (i.e., Sierpenski Carpet, Appolonioan gasket) and the depiction of an embodiment in Figure 3 of a sand screen assembly having repeating patterns of varying scales, Appellant has not provided sufficient argument or evidence as to why the Examiner erred by finding that fractal geometry 78 is depicted clearly in Figure 2 as lacking varying scales. See Req. Reh’g 3; see also, e.g., id. at 2 (“the Board’s construction of the term ‘fractal geometry’ relies solely on their impression of FIG. 2”); id. at 3 (submitting that “depicting a fractal geometry in a two-dimensional, static image is difficult at best”); id. at 4 (“Depicting an object having self-similarity is challenging.”); cf. Spec., Fig. 3. Appellant’s next argument that Shkurti fails to disclose segments 110 of “self-similarity” does not set forth a point believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Req. Reh’g 3; see also Dec. 8 (considering Appellant’s argument that Shkurti fails to depict a repeating pattern as claimed). Appeal 2020-006178 Application 15/902,768 4 In sum, Appellant’s arguments appear to be an expression of dissatisfaction with the Board’s claim construction as set forth in the Decision. DECISION The Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is DENIED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Outcome of the Decision on Rehearing: In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Granted Denied 1–4, 6–9 102(a)(1) Shkurti 1–3, 6–8 5, 10, 11 103 Yeh 5, 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–8, 10, 11 Final Outcome on Appeal after Rehearing: In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–4, 6–9 102(a)(1) Shkurti 1–3, 6–8 4, 9 4, 9 5, 10, 11 103 Yeh 5, 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–8, 10, 11 4, 9 4, 9 DENIED