Ex Parte Nerenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11733255 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT 4
TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte ARNOLD NERENBERG 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2010-010021 11
Application 11/733,255 12
Technology Center 3700 13
____________________ 14
15
16
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
19
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
21
22
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING 23
Appeal 2010-010021
Application 11/733,255

2

Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing of the Board Decision of May 1
31, 2012, stating that we overlooked the Appellant’s separate arguments 2
directed in regard to claims 29 to 37 and 39 to 48. 3
In the Decision on Appeal the Board affirmed the Examiner’s 4
rejection of claims 29 to 37 and 39 to 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 5
The Appellant directs our attention to page 3 of the Decision that 6
sustained the rejection of these claims because the Appellant does not 7
separately address the patentability of these claims. Appellant argues that 8
we overlooked the arguments made by the Appellant that appear in the 9
Appeal Brief at page 20, bottom line to page 23, line 10 and the Reply Brief 10
at page 7, line 8 to page 11, line 5. 11
Upon consideration of the arguments of the Appellant, we modify our 12
original Decision to replace the last full sentence on page 3, with the 13
following: 14
We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 15
5 and 7 to 28 because the Appellant does not separately address 16
the patentability of these claims. We will also sustain this 17
rejection as it is directed to claim 29 and claims 30 to 37 and 39 18
to 48 dependent thereon because the Appellant makes the same 19
arguments in regard to the rejection of these claims as was 20
made in regard to the rejection of claim 1. 21
Accordingly, we remain in agreement with the Examiner’s conclusion 22
that claims 1 to 5, 7 to 37, and 39 to 50 are directed to non-statutory subject 23
matter. 24
Appeal 2010-010021
Application 11/733,255

3
CONCLUSION 1
The Request for Rehearing has been considered. We grant the 2
Request for Rehearing and modify the last sentence on page 3 of our original 3
Decision. The Request for Rehearing is otherwise denied. Accordingly, the 4
Request for Rehearing is granted-in-part. 5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 6
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 7
1.136(a)(1)(iv). 8
9
GRANTED-IN-PART 10
11
12
13
hh 14