Ex Parte 6521831 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2018

95000196 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2018)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,196 01/26/2007 6521831 IE-831 3931
23911 7590 08/02/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
GELLNER, JEFFREY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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
____________

BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC.
Requester

v.

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2017-010838
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,196
United States Patent US 6,521,831 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2017-010838
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,196
Patent 6,521,831 B1

2

Patent Owner requests rehearing of our decision dated November 2,
2017 (“Dec.”), where we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3
as obvious over EC&M (Sept. 1999), Gretz, Schneiderman, and Schnittker
in the above-identified inter partes reexamination.1 Request for Rehearing
filed Dec. 1, 2017 (supplemented Jan. 10, 2018) (“Req. Reh’g”). Requester
challenges the asserted basis for the request in comments filed January 2,
2018 (“Comments”). For the reasons noted in Requester’s comments as
well as those below, we deny the request to modify our decision.
In the request, Patent Owner contends that we misapprehended or
overlooked various points, by allegedly (1) construing the claim
erroneously; (2) finding that Schnittker renders claim 3 obvious; (3)
improperly modifying references with Schnittker; (4) violating the
Administrative Procedure Act by setting forth a new rejection and claim
construction; (5) violating the governing reexamination statutes and
regulations by permitting entry of new prior art references; and (6) finding
Requester’s arguments to be procedural grievances not subject to the
Board’s jurisdiction. Req. Reh’g 1.
After reviewing the supporting arguments and evidence regarding
these contentions in light of our decision and the record as a whole, we are
unpersuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked these points in

1 As noted on page 11 of our earlier decision, the obviousness rejection over
EC&M (Sept. 1999), Gretz, Schneiderman, and Schnittker formed the sole
basis for our affirmance of the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3, and we
did not reach the merits of other proposed rejections of this claim.

Appeal 2017-010838
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,196
Patent 6,521,831 B1

3

rendering our decision for the reasons indicated by Requester on pages 3 to
13 of the Comments, which we adopt as our own.
Also, Patent Owner’s arguments in connection with the Board’s
earlier decision to enter new grounds of rejection in items (4) to (6) above
have been addressed in the Decision on Petition mailed January 8, 2018
(“Petition Decision”). Notably, page 16 of that decision indicated that the
Board has discretion to enter new grounds of rejection, particularly where, as
here, new arguments, amendments, and/or evidence are filed. Therefore, the
Board’s entering Requester’s proposed new grounds of rejection, in
connection with the Board’s remand order to the Examiner on March 24,
2017, did not violate applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
Petition Decision 16. Nor did we err in determining that Patent Owner’s
contentions regarding this entry’s alleged improprieties were petitionable
procedural grievances—not appealable matters. Id. at 17.
Accordingly, for the reasons noted above and by the Requester, we
are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked those points in
rendering our decision.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we have granted Patent Owner’s request to
the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny the request
with respect to making any changes therein.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), 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.
Appeal 2017-010838
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,196
Patent 6,521,831 B1

4

DENIED

Patent Owner:

CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 1430
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-430

Third Party Requester:

MARK E. UNGERMAN
UNGERMAN IP PLLC
2305 CALVERT ST. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20008