Ex Parte 6014634 et al - Page 4


               Appeal No.  2006-1585                                                                      4                        
               Reexamination Control No.  90/005,888                                                                               
                                                                                                                                  
               (§ 1.113 of this title) rejected, may appeal from the decision of the examiner to the                               
               Board.”  MPEP § 2273 (8th ed., Rev. 4, Oct. 2005)) goes somewhat further in stating that                            
               “[i]n an ex parte reexamination filed on or after November 29, 1999, the patent owner                               
               may appeal to the Board only after the final rejection of the claims.”                                              
                       By reopening prosecution in the non-final Office action, the examiner in effect withdrew                    
               the finality of the Office action mailed January 30, 2004.  Therefore, at the present time claims                   
               1-49 are not under final rejection.  The record indicates that the patent owner was well aware of                   
               this fact and the problems it might pose in pursuing an appeal at this juncture of the                              
               reexamination proceeding.  For example, in the second notice of appeal filed June 24, 2005, the                     
               patent owner pointedly left blank the space provided for insertion of the date of the “final office                 
               action” being appealed, signifying an awareness that the Office action being appealed was not a                     
               final rejection.  In contrast, the first notice of appeal filed March 30, 2004 specified the January                
               30, 2004 date of the final rejection (since withdrawn) being appealed.  Furthermore, the curious                    
               submission of the request that the appeal, i.e., the first appeal, be maintained and the first reply                
               brief suggests that the patent owner appreciated the questionable nature of an appeal from a non-                   
               final Office action.                                                                                                
                       At this point, we would note that in the non-final Office action (see page 2) the                           
               examiner, citing 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(2), directed the patent owner to respond by filing                               
               either a reply under 37 CFR § 1.111 or a request for reinstatement of the appeal and a                              
               supplemental brief.  This instruction was erroneous because 37 CFR § 1.193 previously                               
               had been withdrawn in its entirety effective September 13, 2004.  See 69 FR 49960,                                  
               50000, August 12, 2004; and 1286 OG 21, 54, September 7, 2004.  The patent owner, in                                
               apparent recognition of the examiner’s error, instead chose to file the unorthodox                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007