Ex Parte Da Silva Neto

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 2017

10518545 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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. 10/518,545 02/08/2006 Ugenio Ferreira Da Silva Neto DASI3002/FJD 9542 23364 7590 03/16/2017 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC 625 SLATERS LANE FOURTH FLOOR ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176 EXAMINER WRIGHT, BRYAN F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2497 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2017 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): MAIL @B ACONTHOMAS .COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte UGENIO FERREIRA DA SILVA NETO Appeal 2013-006847 Application 10/518,545 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant has requested rehearing of the decision entered September 1, 2015, which affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have considered Appellant’s arguments, and we are not persuaded that any matters were misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. Therefore, the request for rehearing is denied. Appeal 2013-006847 Application 10/518,545 DISCUSSION A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points [of law or fact] believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board,” and must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2012). Appellant contends that our Decision only considered the contentions in the principal Appeal Brief, mentioned only one Reply Brief, and overlooked the other Reply Briefs. Req. Reh’g 2. Appellant further argues the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer quotes a paragraph from Gillen that is nowhere to be found and the Board should have noted this overreaching on the part of the Examiner. Req. Reh’g 2—3. Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner does not provide a basis for why the control unit of Gillen is considered by the Examiner to be the same as the claimed control unit. Req. Reh’g 3. We are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any points of law or fact. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion that our consideration of Appellant’s contentions was “presumably from the BRIEF only” (Req. Reh’g 2), our Decision considered all of the contentions presented by Appellant—including those made in all three Reply Briefs—and found them to be insufficient to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejections. See Dec. 3. Appellant’s assertion the Examiner is testifying by quoting a non existent paragraph from Gillen is a new argument, which is not permitted in the Request for Rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, ... are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4).”). However, we observe that the Examiner specifically states the 2 Appeal 2013-006847 Application 10/518,545 quoted paragraph is from Appellant’s Specification, and not Gillen as alleged by Appellant. See Ans. 3. Finally, our Decision considered Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Gillen teaches the “remote control unit.” Dec. 3— 4. We were not persuaded of error because the Examiner found Crater teaches “connected over a bus with a remote control unit” (i.e., a control unit that is remote) and explained that “[o]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Dec. 4 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision. CONCLUSION We have granted Appellant’s request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision entered September 1, 2015. Appellant has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of law or fact in reaching that Decision. Accordingly, the request is denied. 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. § 41.50(f). REHEARING DENIED 3