Appeal No. 2001-2115
Reissue Application 08/433,986
BACKGROUND
No prior art is relied upon in the rejection.
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being
based on a defective reissue declaration under 37 CFR § 1.175.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 15) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the brief
(Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
This pending reissue application is given the benefit of the
current more liberal version of 37 CFR § 1.175, which became
effective on December 1, 1997. See Shockley v. Arcan, Inc.,
248 F.3d 1349, 1358-59, 58 USPQ2d 1692, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
An oath or declaration under the old Rule 1.175 would satisfy the
requirements of the new rule. The Examiner's statement of the
ground of rejection refers to the old rule (EA3), while the
response to the arguments refers to the new rule (EA4), so the
Examiner has considered the new rule.
It appears that the Examiner considers Mr. Bieberstein's
declaration to be defective because it does not contain a
verbatim recitation of the language of § 1.175 rather than
because of some missing substantive requirement of the rule.
Appellant argues that "neither the statute nor the Rules require
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007