Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 08479810"

See other formats


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. 



08/479,810 06/07/1995 JOHANNES G. BEDNORZ YOR919870074US5 8594 



877 7590 05/13/2010 

IBM CORPORATION, T.J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER 
P.O. BOX 218 

YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, NY 10598 



EXAMINER 



KOPEC, MARK T 



PAPER NUMBER 



1796 



NOTIFICATION DATE 



05/13/2010 



DELIVERY MODE 



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): 

iplawy or @ u s . ibm. com 



PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 



UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 



BEFORE THE 

BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES 



Ex parte Johannes G. Bednorz and Carl A. Mueller 



Appeal 2009-003320 
Application 08/479,810 
Technology Center 1 700 



Mailed: May 11,2010 



DECISION ON PETITION 

This is a decision on the "Request for Oral Hearing on 
Appellants' Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)," filed 
November 17, 2010 ("Request for Oral Hearing on Request for Rehearing"). 
This Request will be treated as a Petition to the Chief Administrative Patent 
Judge under 37 C.F.R. § 41 .3(a). 

FINDINGS 

1 . On September 1 7, 2009, a Decision on Appeal was entered affirming 
and reversing rejections of the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12, 1 for lack 
of enablement. 

2. On November 17, 2009, Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing. 



Appeal 2009-003320 
Application 08/479,810 

3 . Appellants acknowledge that "they do not have a right to an oral 
hearing" on a Request for Rehearing. Request for Oral Hearing on Request 
for Rehearing, p. 1. 

4. Appellants contend that an oral hearing should be granted "due to the 
important nature of this appeal." Ibid. 

5 . Suspension or waiver of an applicable rule may be granted only in an 
extraordinary situation when justice requires. 37 C.F.R. § 1.183. 

DISCUSSION 

Notwithstanding the importance of the subject matter of this appeal, 
both Appellants and the Office are constrained to follow applicable rules. 
As tacitly recognized by Appellants (Finding 3), neither the rule applicable 
to requests for oral hearings, 37 C.F.R. § 41.47, nor the rule applicable to 
requests for rehearing, 37 C.F.R. § 41 .52, include any provision relating to 
oral hearings in connection with requests for rehearing. 

Other than a conclusory allegation concerning the alleged importance 
of this appeal (Finding 4), Appellants have provided no facts constituting an 
extraordinary situation for which justice requires waiver of the rules 
concerning an oral hearing on a request for rehearing. 



2 



Appeal 2009-003320 
Application 08/479,810 



DECISION 



In view of the foregoing, the Request for Oral Hearing on Request for 
Rehearing is DENIED. Appellants' Request for Rehearing has been 
assigned to a panel of Administrative Patent Judges for consideration and 
disposition. 



Michael R. Fleming [ 
Chief Administrative Patent Judge 



Daniel P. Morris 

IBM Corporation 

T.J. Watson Research Center 

P.O. Box 218 

Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 




3