LH Taylor Associates, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 9, 2020

2020004192 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2020)

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. 14/971,878 12/16/2015 Lawnie Henderson Taylor 7400 7590 11/09/2020 LAWNIE HENDERSON TAYLOR 14421 BROOKMEAD DRIVE GERMANTOWN, MD 20874 EXAMINER BOYER, CHARLES I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2020 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LAWNIE HENDERSON TAYLOR ____________ Appeal 2020-004192 Application 14/971,878 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), filed October 16, 2020, of our Decision, mailed September 17, 2020 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 101, 102 and 103 rejections of all appealed claims. The Request for Rehearing de facto limits its argument to the prior art rejections, as no argument was made that is applicable with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 or 101 rejection. We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error in the disposition of the §§ 102 and 103 rejections. Appellant states that the “Board misapprehended the erroneous subject matter that the calculated ratio is a bleach claim limitation” and Appeal 2020-004192 Application 14/971,878 2 urges that the calculated ratio of a bleach composition cannot encompass the recited selected ratio. (Req. Reh’g 1). Appellant contends that “the selected ratio requires no calculation and is able to exist as a claim element for a bleach formulation.” (Req. Reh’g 2). Appellant urges that the applied references do not meet this claim element (the selected ratio). (Req. Reh’g 4). These arguments are not persuasive of any error in our Decision. Appellant’s argument merely reargues the same points we have already addressed in our Decision. (See e.g., Decision 21, 22). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the recited “selected ratio” may indeed encompass the calculated ratio relied upon in the Examiner’s determination of anticipation and/or obviousness of claimed bleach composition. As we stated: Appellant fails to appreciate that one simply may not rely upon a mental process, or decision (that is, Appellant’s selected ratio value), to formulate the bleach composition in a claim directed to the bleach composition product or in a claim to prescribe the natural fabric effect of a bleach composition. (Decision 22). Accordingly, no persuasive merit is present in Appellant’s arguments made in the Request for Rehearing. Thus, we decline to modify our decision to affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections of the appealed claims. DECISION In conclusion, Appellant’s Request is denied with respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejections. Appeal 2020-004192 Application 14/971,878 3 This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our Decision, mailed July 11, 2019, and is final for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1). Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 131–153 102(b) 103(a) Scialla 131–153 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 102(b) 103(a) Agostini 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 102(b) 103(a) Grande 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 Overall Outcome 131–153 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 131–144 112 Indefiniteness 131–144 131–144 101 Eligibility 131–144 131–153 102(b) 103(a) Scialla 131–153 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 102(b) 103(a) Agostini 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 102(b) 103(a) Grande 131–135, 137–149, 151–153 Appeal 2020-004192 Application 14/971,878 4 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 131–153 REHEARING DENIED