Opinion ID: 2806771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court Has Jurisdiction over Acme’s Appeal

Text: As a threshold matter, LTS argues “[t]his [c]ourt does not have jurisdiction over this Appeal because Acme failed to exhaust its right to request rehearing before the Board.” Appellee’s Br. 16. LTS also contends that Acme was required “to request that the Acme Patent be remanded to the reexamination Examiner to consider an amendment to the rejected claims and/or new evidence related to the claims so rejected, along with any further comments or response thereto regarding the Rehearing Decision.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Acme counters that it “exhausted its remedies below and it would be futile in any event to seek further review” because “[t]he Board granted the rehearing only to further interpret Bourgoin to invalidate th[e] claims [at issue].” Reply Br. 6. Therefore, Acme argues “[t]he 6 ACME SCALE CO. v. LTS SCALE CO. [Board’s] decision did not change in substance or effect.” Id. Instead, according to Acme, “the Board merely further explained the basis for its first decision.” Id. “The parties to an appeal to the Board may not appeal to [this court] under [37 C.F.R,] § 1.983[2] . . . until all parties’ rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81 (2014). The initial appeal to the Board resulted in a decision dated May 18, 2013. Acme subsequently filed for rehearing and the Board issued its decision on April 29, 2014. The Board stated the decision “is deemed to incorporate the [May 18, 2013 decision] reflecting [the Board’s] decision for appeal.” Rehearing Decision at  (second alteration in original) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d)). The Board also stated the “Rehearing decision is hereby designated, with respect to the facts addressed here, ‘in effect, a new decision.’” Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(d)) (emphasis added). In reversing an Examiner’s determination not to make a rejection proposed by a third party requester, the “proposed rejection [] will be set forth in the decision of 2 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 states: (a) The patent owner or third party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding who is a party to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and who is dissatisfied with the de- cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may, subject to § 41.81, appeal to the U.S. Court of Ap- peals for the Federal Circuit and may be a party to any appeal thereto taken from a reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. ACME SCALE CO. v. LTS SCALE CO. 7 the [Board] as a new ground of rejection.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a). “Any decision which includes a new ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Id. § 41.77(b). When a new ground of rejection is made, the patentee, “within one month from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal proceeding as to the rejected claim.” Id. (emphasis added). The patentee may either reopen prosecution or request rehearing. By contrast, in a rehearing decision, as opposed to an initial appeal taken by a party, when the Board determines its decision is a “new decision,” parties to the appeal “may, within one month of the new decision, file a further request for rehearing of the new decision.” Id. § 41.79(d) (emphasis added). Therefore, as it did in this instance, when the Board renders its decision on rehearing as a new decision, both parties have a one month window to request a rehearing of the rehearing decision. However, the language employed by the regulation is permissive and provides a party the opportunity to pursue another rehearing should it choose to do so. Such permissive language stands in contrast to the language employed in § 41.77(b) of the same regulation, which mandates that parties must either reopen prosecution or request rehearing. Id. § 41.77(b)(1)–(2). Therefore, the PTO imposes different demands on parties who receive Board decisions containing new grounds of rejections and those who receive a Board rehearing decision deemed a “new decision.” As dictated by the permissive language of the regulation, it is not incumbent on a party to seek a rehearing after the Board issues its decision on a request for rehearing that it deems a “new decision.” A different reading of the regulation as urged by LTS would engender an illogical outcome where the PTO would continuously require parties to seek further rehearings, irrespective of the fact that the Board has already 8 ACME SCALE CO. v. LTS SCALE CO. entertained the party’s claim on the initial request for rehearing. Additionally, during oral arguments, counsel for LTS argued that upon the Board’s rehearing decision, Acme is only entitled to pursue one of two options: 1) it may protect its appellate rights by filing another request for rehearing; or 2) “the party might decide to go home.” Oral Arg. at 22:58–23:05, available at http://www.cafc. uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2014-1721/all. In other words, counsel for LTS asserts that a party must file a second request for rehearing to the Board or lose its appellate rights altogether whenever the Board declares its ruling on rehearing to be a “new decision.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d). By entering a “new decision” when a party seeks a rehearing after an earlier rehearing decision, the Board could theoretically create a perpetual appeal rehearing cycle, thus abrogating this court’s appellate jurisdiction. In effect, LTS’s reading of the regulation would permit the PTO (an executive branch entity) to strip away this court’s appellate jurisdiction. We think the PTO never intended such an outcome.