Ex Parte Hufenbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2017

14362693 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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. 14/362,693 06/04/2014 Werner Hufenbach 6560-P50138 8133 13897 7590 ] Abel Law Group, LLP 8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy Bldg 4, Suite 4200 Austin, TX 78759 EXAMINER VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2017 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 @ Abel-IP.com hmuensterer @ abel-ip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex Parte WERNER HUFENBACH, MARTIN LEPPER, JENS WERNER, and CHRISTIAN KOEHLER Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL A. STRAUSS, LARRY HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) for reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal mailed August 24, 2017 (“Decision”) in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 11—30. Appellants contend that in entering the new ground of rejection the Board misapprehended certain points. Request 1. More particularly, Appellants argue as follows: Argument I: Spoelstra does not disclose the elements of dependent claim 23. Request 1^4. Argument II: The “area of the drop center” encompasses more than just the edge areas of the drop center. Request 4—5. Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 Argument III: The Examiner’s interpretation of “contour” as recited in claim 11 renders the term meaningless. Request 5—6. ANALYSIS We note as an initial matter: [The USPTO] applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We also point out: 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). Argument I For the first time, Appellants raise new arguments as to why Spoelstra does not disclose the elements of dependent claim 23, i.e., “mats of oriented textile fibers.” Request 1^4. Appellants appear to acknowledge these arguments were not included in the briefing. See Request 2. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants were considered in the Decision. Accordingly, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked an argument that was not presented or not presented adequately in the briefing. We remind Appellants that a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to reiterate arguments presented previously 2 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 in earlier pleadings that were fully addressed in an earlier Decision. 37 C.F.R. §41.52 Argument II Appellants argue the “area of the drop center” encompasses more than just the edge areas of the drop center. Request 4—5. We did not misapprehend or overlook this argument. Rather, we considered and rejected this argument. Decision 3. In particular, we found “the claims do not require contact with the entirety of the drop center.” Id. Argument III Appellants argue the interpretation of “contour” as recited in claim 11 renders the term meaningless. Request 5—6. We did not misapprehend or overlook this argument. Rather, we considered and rejected this argument. Decision 3^4 (“Appellants also argue the Examiner interprets contour to merely mean ‘shape’ and this interpretation renders the claim term meaningless.”). We considered and agreed with the Examiner’s interpretation of “contour” as referring to a shape of interface between the named elements, and found this to be consistent with the Specification. Id. CONCLUSION We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants’ comments in the Request. We have found no errors in our previous Decision. Therefore, we deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing in that we decline to make any change in the Decision. 3 Appeal 2017-003518 Application 14/362,693 DECISION While we have granted Appellants' Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, that request is denied with respect to making any changes therein. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED 4