Ex Parte Meers

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 2017

13460919 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 13/460,919 05/01/2012 Ryan C. Meers 11463 PUS; 67080-540 PUS1 8766 26096 7590 01/03/2018 TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C EXAMINER 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 CHEUNG, CHUN HOI BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3728 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2018 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN C. MEERS Appeal 2015-006968 Application 13/460,919 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2015-006968 Application 13/460,919 Appellant filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING on November 6, 2017 (hereinafter “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, seeking rehearing of our Decision, mailed September 5, 2017 (hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”), which affirmed various final rejections of the claims made by the Examiner. We grant the Rehearing Request to the extent that we consider the Requester’s arguments, but DENY the request to modify the Decision. Appellant’s request is based upon the premise that the Board overlooked or misapprehended the teachings of Knox and the arguments made with respect thereto. Reh’g Req. 1. Even if we were to agree with Appellant’s arguments regarding Knox, the main issue relating to the rejection was not to Knox’s teachings, but to the motivation for combining the references. Nowhere in the Decision did the Board rely solely on the teachings in Knox, implicit or otherwise, as to whether items could be stacked upon Knox’s bucket/handle. In fact, as very clearly stated, “[t]he Examiner’s finding that buckets and other items may be supported on the handle need not be disclosed in Knox itself and can be gleaned from the knowledge of one of skill in the art.” Dec. 4. Appellant’s Rehearing Request does not address this basis for supporting the Examiner’s rejection. As such, nothing was overlooked or misapprehended warranting revision of the decision. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections remain affirmed. 2 Appeal 2015-006968 Application 13/460,919 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (l)(iv). DENIED 3