AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Burns et al 11998673 - (D) GARRIS 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP ANDERSON, JERRY W
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kummer et al 11693024 - (D) CURCURI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) MONTOYA, OSCHTA I
2463 Ex Parte Wu et al 12166619 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Hirth 11166464 - (D) EVANS 103 Dilworth IP - SAP ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN
The Board need not use identical language to that of the Examiner to avoid triggering a new ground of rejection. It is not a new ground of rejection, for example, to provide additional explanation or to restate the reasoning of the rejection in a different way, so long as the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding the Board’s additional explanation “did not change the rejection”). See also In re Noznick, 391 F.2d 946, 949 (CCPA 1968) (concluding the Board did not make a new ground of rejection when “explaining to appellants why their arguments were ineffective to overcome the rejection made by the examiner”); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 817 (CCPA 1963) (“It is well established that mere difference in form of expression of the reasons for finding claims unpatentable or unobvious over the references does not amount to reliance on a different ground of rejection” (internal citations omitted)); In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 555 (CCPA 1946) (holding that the use of “different language” does not necessarily trigger a new ground of rejection).
Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02
Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03
Noznick, In re, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973) 716.03(b)
