Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2014

10873549 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN PAUL KIM
____________

Appeal 2013-008457
Application 10/873,549
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2013-008457
Application 10/873,549
2

Appellant’s Request for Rehearing (filed January 22, 2014) contends
that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered November 22, 2013
(“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1, 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59, 62-68, and 71-76.

DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that the Board’s decision to adopt the Examiner’s
findings of fact and to concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner
do not meet the notice requirement set forth under the Administrative
Procedure Act. Re q. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends that the Board
has not articulated a single sentence explaining how any one claim limitation
of any one claim reflects a teaching found in the prior art cited by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s rejection. Req. 4-5. Appellant also contends
that the Board has not set forth a single claim construction for the disputed
claim construction of multiple claim limitations. Req. 5.
However, in our Decision, we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that
the claim limitation “positioning the first portlet adjacent to at least one
other portlet” is taught by Poulsen as explained in the Examiner’s Answer.
Decision at 3. We also agreed with the Examiner’s findings that the other
disputed claim limitations are taught by the combination of Poulsen and
Mann. Id. at 3-4. We noted pages of the Examiner’s Answer that cite to the
specific portions of Poulsen and Mann that teach the disputed claim
limitations. On this record, the specific findings of fact that support the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59,
62-68, and 71-76 are found in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s
Answer, which gives Appellant proper notice of the basis for the rejection.
Appeal 2013-008457
Application 10/873,549
3
Also, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in the claim construction made by the Examiner in the
Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
We have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our Decision, but we deny the request with respect to making
any changes therein.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

tkl

Appeal 2013-008457
Application 10/873,549
4