Ex Parte 7,060,922 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

90009392 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

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.
90/009,392 02/27/2009 7,060,922 TJA-903 6503
7590 12/18/2012
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
6600 SEARS TOWER
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
RUBIN, MARGARET R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2012 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 GAMESMAN LIMITED
____________________

Appeal 2012-003819
Reexamination Control 90/009,392
Patent 7,060,922 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
1

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1
The Decision on Appeal mailed June 6, 2012 was issued by a panel
composed of Administrative Patent Judges Siu, Clarke, and Cocks. Judge
Clarke has taken another position within the Office. Judge Easthom has
been paneled in his stead to consider the Request for Rehearing.
Appeal 2012-003819
Reexamination Control 90/009,392
Patent 7,060,922 B2

2
A. SUMMARY
In the June 6, 2012 Decision on Appeal (“Decision”), the panel
concluded that Patent Owner Gamesman Limited (“Gamesman”) had not
shown error in the Examiner’s decision to reject its claims 1-30 and 32-39.
Gamesman requests rehearing.
We have considered Gamesman’s request but we decline to modify
the prior Decision. Accordingly, the request for rehearing is denied.
B. ANALYSIS
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). Here, Gamesman is of the view that the Board
“misapprehended or overlooked Appellant’s arguments that the combination
of Smith and Campari does not teach or suggest the claimed invention to one
of ordinary skill in the art.” (Reh’g Req., p. 2.)
2
Gamesman then proceeds
to seemingly reiterate many of the arguments that it had previously
presented in its Briefs. (Id. at pp. 2- 11.) Gamesman also contends that the
Board “misapprehended or overlooked” arguments that it had made in
connection with the Examiner’s assessment as to the disclosure of Smith,
and then restates them. (Id. at pp. 12-13.)
The basis on which Gamesman seeks rehearing is misplaced. The
panel did not misapprehend or overlook any of Gamesman’s arguments
made with respect to the combination of Smith and Campari or as to the

2
“Smith” refers to International Application Publication No. WO 94/24,683
published October 27, 1994. “Campari” refers to European Patent
Publication No. EP 1,347,363 A1 published September 2002.
Appeal 2012-003819
Reexamination Control 90/009,392
Patent 7,060,922 B2

3
content of Smith. Rather, the panel simply found those arguments
unpersuasive. After due consideration and review of the record, the panel
concluded that Gamesman had not made out a case showing error in the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. The reasoning for that conclusion is
reflected in the Decision. Gamesman evidently disagrees with the
conclusion. Disagreement, however, is not a proper basis for seeking
rehearing.
C. CONCLUSION
Gamesman’s Request for Rehearing is denied.

DENIED

ack

FOR PATENT OWNER:

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
6600 SEARS TOWER
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, IL 60606

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

JACQUES L. ETKOWICZ
RATNERPRESTIA
P.O. BOX 980
VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482