37 CFR 41.52 provides that any request for rehearing must specifically state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the Board’s decision. Experience has shown that many requests for rehearing are nothing more than reargument of appellant’s position on appeal. In response, the rule was revised to limit requests to the points of law or fact which appellant feels were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except appellant may present (A) new argument(s) based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, (B) new argument(s) responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), and (C) new argument(s) that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. If appellant relies upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, a remand by the Board to the examiner to respond to that new argument may be appropriate.

37 CFR 41.52 provides that any request for rehearing must specifically state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the Board’s decision. Experience has shown that many requests for rehearing are nothing more than reargument of appellant’s position on appeal. In response, the rule was revised to limit requests to the points of law or fact which appellant feels were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except appellant may present (A) new argument(s) based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, (B) new argument(s) responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), and (C) new argument(s) that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. If appellant relies upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, a remand by the Board to the examiner to respond to that new argument may be appropriate.

37 CFR 41.52 provides that any request for rehearing must specifically state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the Board’s decision. Experience has shown that many requests for rehearing are nothing more than reargument of appellant’s position on appeal. In response, the rule was revised to limit requests to the points of law or fact which appellant feels were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except appellant may present (A) new argument(s) based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, (B) new argument(s) responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), and (C) new argument(s) that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. If appellant relies upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, a remand by the Board to the examiner to respond to that new argument may be appropriate.

If a timely request for rehearing of the Board’s decision is filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or for commencing a civil action expires 63 days after a decision on a request for rehearing or reconsideration (37 CFR 90.3(b)(1)). An applicant may file a RCE during the 63 day period available to appeal after decision on the rehearing request. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection XI.

(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.

The term “rehearing” is used in 37 CFR 41.52 for consistency with the language of 35 U.S.C. 6(b). It should not be interpreted as meaning that an appellant is entitled to an oral hearing on the request for rehearing, but only to a rehearing on the written record. It is not the normal practice of the Board to grant rehearings in the sense of another oral hearing. Ex parte Argoudelis, 157 USPQ 437, 441 (Bd. App. 1967), rev’d. on other grounds, 434 F.2d 1390, 168 USPQ 99 (CCPA 1970).

37 CFR 41.52 provides that any request for rehearing must specifically state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the Board’s decision. Experience has shown that many requests for rehearing are nothing more than reargument of appellant’s position on appeal. In response, the rule was revised to limit requests to the points of law or fact which appellant feels were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except appellant may present (A) new argument(s) based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, (B) new argument(s) responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), and (C) new argument(s) that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. If appellant relies upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, a remand by the Board to the examiner to respond to that new argument may be appropriate.

37 CFR 41.52 provides that any request for rehearing must specifically state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the Board’s decision. Experience has shown that many requests for rehearing are nothing more than reargument of appellant’s position on appeal. In response, the rule was revised to limit requests to the points of law or fact which appellant feels were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except appellant may present (A) new argument(s) based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, (B) new argument(s) responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), and (C) new argument(s) that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. If appellant relies upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, a remand by the Board to the examiner to respond to that new argument may be appropriate.

The 2-month period provided by 37 CFR 41.52(a) for filing a request for rehearing can only be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(b) or under 37 CFR 1.550(c) if the appeal involves an ex parte reexamination proceeding.

If a timely request for rehearing of the Board’s decision is filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or for commencing a civil action expires 63 days after a decision on a request for rehearing or reconsideration (37 CFR 90.3(b)(1)). An applicant may file a RCE during the 63 day period available to appeal after decision on the rehearing request. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection XI.

For extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or commence a civil action under 37 CFR 90.3(c), see MPEP § 1216 and § 1002.02(o).