Ex Parte MackayDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201713297194 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/297,194 11/15/2011 Glenn Frederick Mackay 1256-002U 7575 7590 09/22/201729973 CRGO LAW ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 EXAMINER MENDIRATTA, VISHU K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2017 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GLENN FREDERICK MACKAY Appeal 2015-0082321 Application 13/297,1942 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant requests rehearing of our Decision entered June 30, 2017, which affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 13, 14, and 16 as 1 We may reference herein Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 10, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 14, 2015), and Request for Rehearing (“Request,” filed Aug. 30, 2017); the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 14, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 10, 2014); and our Decision on Appeal (“Decision,” mailed June 30, 2017. 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fun Media, Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-008232 Application 13/297,194 directed to non-statutory subject matter.3 After reconsideration, we realize that the relied-upon identification of an abstract idea (i.e., “rules for playing a game”) may not be affiliated with the limitations recited in the claims on appeal. Independent claim 1, for example, recites the creation of a game board surface image but does not state any specific rules for the game. Accordingly, as the record before us fails to adequately establish that the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not sustained. CONCLUSION We have carefully reviewed the original Decision in light of Appellant’s request, and we now REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—11, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, Appellant’s request for rehearing is granted. GRANTED 3 The Decision also addressed rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 102, 103, which are not addressed in the Request. 2 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation