Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2017

13662793 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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. 13/662,793 10/29/2012 John Francis MARTIN Ark-GB0703683.3 6009 22925 7590 08/22/2017 PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC 55 MADISON AVENUE 4THFLOOR MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-7397 EXAMINER SAOUD, CHRISTINE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2017 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): docket @ LicensingLaw. net administration @LicensingLaw.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN FRANCIS MARTIN and CHARLES HENRY RODECK Appeal 2015-007446 Application 13/662,793 Technology Center 1600 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, and DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants, on July 12, 2017, filed a “Request For Reconsideration,” hereinafter referred to as the “Request.” We treat Appellants’ Request as a “Rehearing” request under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Board’s May 15, 2017 Decision on Appeal (“Decision”), affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7 for lack of enablement. As discussed further below, the Request is DENIED. Appeal 2015-007446 Application 13/662,793 Under § 41.52, a “request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellants’ Request does not meet this standard. Rather than identify with particularity any points allegedly misapprehended or overlooked by the Board, Appellants return to arguing that the Examiner failed to provide sufficient support for the rejection of the claims as nonenabled. (Request 1— 2.) We remain unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1, 2, and 7 did not comply with the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA), for the reasons explained throughout the Board’s Decision. An applicant dissatisfied with a decision of the Board may seek relief through further appeal or civil action (see 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 and 145). The Board need not, however, decide the same issues multiple times on the same record. Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that we misapprehended or overlooked relevant points of fact or law in arriving at our Decision. Consequently, although we have considered Appellants’ Request, we decline to make any change in the Decision. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). REHEARING DENIED 2