Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200
1 document containing many pages has been “cited” does not mean that we have
2 considered the entire document. Rather, we consider only that portion of the document
3 called to our attention. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir. 1999)
4 (court will not play archaeologist with the record); Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp.,
5 44 USPQ2d 1719, 1723 n.16 (N.D. Ill. 1977) (where party cites to a multi-page exhibit
6 without citing a specific portion or page, the court will not pour over the documents to
7 extract the relevant information).
8 We have not considered the following:
9 (1) The reply brief, which was refused entry by the Examiner. The
10 Chief Administrative Patent Judge invited Appellants to have the appeal remanded so that
11 the Director of Technology Center 1600 could entertain a petition to review the
12 Examiner’s refusal to enter the reply brief. Appellants declined the Chief Judge’s
13 invitation, electing instead to go forward with oral argument.
14 (2) Documents in the new evidence appendix which are not in English.
15
16 C. Findings of fact
17 The record supports the following findings of fact by at least a preponderance of
18 the evidence.
19 The patent under reexamination (Ochiai ‘216)
20 U.S. Patent 5,583,216 (Ochiai ‘216) under reexamination and now on appeal
21 issued on 10 December 1996.
22 Ochiai ‘216 is based on an application filed 8 January 1990, and claims benefit of
23 a series of applications, the first of which was filed on 19 December 1975 (Ochiai ‘888).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007