Ex Parte Johnston et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2017

13175026 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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.
13/175,026 07/01/2011 JAY A JOHNSTON P09020D/MD06-54 1841
157 7590
Covestro LLC
1 Covestro Circle
PITTSBURGH, PA 15205
EXAMINER
LEONARD, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2017 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):
veronica.thompson@covestro.com
US-IPR@covestro.com
laura.finnell @ covestro. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Bayer Materialscience LLC
Appeal 2014-002152
Application 13/175,026
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and MARKNAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges1.
LANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REHEARING
37 C.F.R. § 41.52
1 We entered a “Decision on Appeal” (Decision) on February 19, 2016. In the
2 Decision we affirmed the rejection of claims 12—15 and 17. Because we cited
3 several new prior art references, our obviousness rationale differed from that of the
4 Examiner, and we newly rejected claims 12—15 and 17 over Wintermantel, we
5 designated our affirmance as a new rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). (Decision,
6 page 12:15—18).
1 The panel on rehearing differs from the panel that decided the appeal due to
the passing of Judge McKelvey.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Appeal 2014-002152
Application 13/175,026
On April 19, 2016 the Appellant timely filed a request for rehearing
(Request). 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a) (1). In the Request Appellant contends that the
Board misapprehended or overlooked figure 2-7 of the newly cited “Dissertation”
reference. The figure is reproduced below:
Fiyuffc S'7, Cosnpadsoft oJ ftSWD of usssd caf&yeferi
<