Robyn Haines et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 2021

2020006456 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

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. 12/925,221 10/13/2010 Robyn Aylor Haines AYLOR-US4 8371 7590 05/28/2021 Robert B. Aylor 9502 Bluewing Terrace Cincinnati, OH 45241 EXAMINER WEARE, MEREDITH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3791 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 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 ROBYN AYLOR HAINES and ROBERT BENSON AYLOR Appeal 2020-006456 Application 12/925,221 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed his REQUEST FOR REHEARING on April 23, 2021 (hereinafter “Request for Rehearing” or “Req. Reh’g.”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, seeking rehearing of our Decision mailed March 31, 2021 (hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”). We grant the Request for Rehearing to the extent that we consider the Appellant’s arguments, but DENY the request to modify the Decision. A Rehearing Request under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 has the very specific requirements that the party seeking rehearing allege that the Board misapprehended or overlooked something in rendering the original decision. Appeal 2020-006456 Application 12/925,221 2 Here, the Requester has done neither. See Reh’g. Req. 1–21. In fact, neither the word “misapprehend” nor “overlook” appears in Appellant’s Request. At best Appellant merely rehashes arguments already made and addressed in the Decision. Accordingly, because no proper basis for rehearing is stated, we deny Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. DECISION While we have considered the Decision in light of the Request for Rehearing, we decline to modify it in any respect. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, this decision is final for the purpose of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. DENIED