GENCELL LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 20212020005602 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2021) 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. 15/548,214 08/02/2017 Gennadi FINKELSHTAIN 6250-P50397 1711 13897 7590 12/10/2021 Abel Schillinger, LLP 12414 Alderbrook Drive Suite 201 Austin, TX 78758 EXAMINER IQBAL, SYED TAHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2021 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): hmuensterer@abel-ip.com mail@Abel-IP.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GENNADI FINKELSHTAIN, NINO BORCHTCHOUKOVA, and LEONID TITELMAN Appeal 2020-005602 Application 15/548,214 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g” or “Request”), dated November 19, 2021, of our Decision, dated September 23, 2021 (“Dec.”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject all of the appealed claims. Appellant requests reconsideration of our affirmance of the rejection of claims 36–55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Okamura. Req. Reh’g 1–5. We have reconsidered our Decision of November 19, 2021, in light of Appellant’s comments in the Request, and we find no error in the disposition of the rejection of claims 36–55. Appeal 2020-005602 Application 15/548,214 2 A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2019). In the Request, Appellant reiterates statements from pages 6 and 10 of the Appeal Brief and asserts we overlooked or misapprehended their argument that Okamura fails to indicate the percentage of (1) nickel in any form based on the catalyst as opposed to catalytically active material only and (2) components A, B, and C based on the total weight of catalyst including the carrier. Req. Reh’g 2–5. Appellant “do[es] not disagree with the stated facts regarding Okamura,” but asserts that independent claim 36’s recitation “the catalyst comprises from 32 % to 42 % by weight of nickel oxide” means “at least 58% by weight of the claimed catalyst are different from nickel oxide.” Id. at 4. According to Appellant, what that different material would be understood to be is carrier material or additional catalytically active components. Id. As explained in the Decision, Okamura’s disclosure that component B is nickel oxide and represents from 0–50% relative to 100% of the catalytically active component, which Okamura discloses can be made up of catalytically active components A and B, means the concentration of nickel oxide in Okamura’s catalyst overlaps claim 36’s range of “from 32 % to 42 %.” Dec. 4–5. Appellant notes that Okamura discloses that the catalyst may include a carrier as required by dependent claim 50. Req. Reh’g 2. Appellant asserts that the inclusion of a carrier in Okamura’s catalyst will reduce the concentration of nickel oxide in the catalyst as measured on the basis of both the catalytically active material and inert carrier material (“components A and B plus the carrier”). Id. at 2–3. However, claim 50 does not require any particular amount of inert material. Dec. 10. The issue of whether the amount of inert material added to Okamura’s catalyst reduces the nickel Appeal 2020-005602 Application 15/548,214 3 oxide concentration from up to 50% nickel oxide to some lesser amount aside, Okamura’s disclosure teaches or suggests Appellant’s “catalyst compris[ing] from 32 % to 42 % by weight of nickel oxide” as required by claims 36 and 50. In a determination of obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inference and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.”). In sum, we do not find Appellant’s repeated arguments persuasive for the reasons presented in the Decision. Thus, we decline to modify our decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s Request is denied with respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejections therein. Appeal 2020-005602 Application 15/548,214 4 CONCLUSION Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 36–55 103 Okamura 36–55 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 36–55 103 Okamura 36–55 This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our Decision, mailed September 23, 2021, and is final for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2011). DENIED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation