(a)(1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, pursuant to §§ 41.37, 41.41, or 41.47 are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section. When a request for rehearing is made, the Board shall render a decision on the request for rehearing. The decision on the request for rehearing is deemed to incorporate the earlier opinion reflecting its decision for appeal, except for those portions specifically withdrawn on rehearing, and is final for the purpose of judicial review, except when noted otherwise in the decision on rehearing.
(2) Appellant may present a new argument based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court.
(3) New arguments responding to a new ground of rejection designated pursuant to § 41.50(b) are permitted.
(4) New arguments that the Board's decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection are permitted.
(b) Extensions of time under § 1.136(a) of this title for patent applications are not applicable to the time period set forth in this section. See § 1.136(b) of this title for extensions of time to reply for patent applications and § 1.550(c) of this title for extensions of time to reply for ex parte reexamination proceedings.
[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 72299, Nov. 22, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“In February 2011, Power Integrations filed a request for rehearing with the board pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 . It argued that the board had “misapprehended” its argument regarding the proper construction of the term “coupled to” in claim 1 of the '876 patent, explaining that…”
In Re: Distefano, 808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1) the Board incorporates the holdings of the Decision on Remand in its Second Decision on Remand, except for when the decisions conflict.”
In Re Hillis, 484 F. App'x 491 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The Board denied the respective requests after refusing in each case to consider newly submitted evidence that was not previously cited in Hillis’s respective appeal briefs or reply briefs to the Board.”
In Re Avid Identification Sys., Inc., 504 F. App'x 885 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We agree with the Director that Avid first raised this argument in its petition for rehearing and that the Board properly refused to consider it in the first instance under 37 C.F.R. 41.52(a)(1). Similarly, “our review of the Board’s decision is confined to the ‘four corners’ of…”
In Re Samuels (Fed. Cir. 2024).
“See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.52 (a)(4), 41.50(c); see also J.”
In Re Riggs (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“(which in turn cited 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.52 , 41.35(b)(2))); see Appellants’ Br.”
In Re Li (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“Case: 24-1209 Document: 61 Page: 9 Filed: 04/08/2025 IN RE: LI 9 Applicants filed a request for rehearing, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 , which the Board denied on October 4, 2023.”
Inre: Bentwich, 566 F. App'x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“The Board granted Bentwich’s request, but maintained the anticipation rejection after considering his arguments, thus making the rejection of claim 21 final.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) — 1 case
In Re Avid Identification Sys., Inc., 504 F. App'x 885 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
“We agree with the Director that Avid first raised this argument in its petition for rehearing and that the Board properly refused to consider it in the first instance under 37 C.F.R. 41.52(a)(1). Similarly, “our review of the Board’s decision is confined to the ‘four corners’ of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.