Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 Office action mailed December 17, 2004; Appeal Brief filed August 5, 2005;
2 Reply Brief filed November 1, 2005.)
3 Because (i) the examiner has made out a prima facie case of obviousness
4 against claims 1-6 and (ii) the appellant (patent owner BASF AG) has failed to
5 direct us to sufficient argument or evidence in rebuttal, we AFFIRM.
6 I.
7 II. FINDINGS OF FACT
8 We make the following findings of fact (hereinafter “FF __”).
9 A. Background
10 1. This appeal involves the merged reexamination of claims 1-6 of
11 United States patent 5,578,684 (‘684 patent) issued to Christian
12 Schade, Dieter Boeckh, and Juergen Detering on November 26, 1996,
13 based on application 08/507,237 filed August 24, 1995.
14 2. Claims 7-12, the only other claims in the ‘684 patent, are not involved
15 in the reexamination. (Appeal brief filed August 5, 2005 at 5.)
16 3. The patent owner (appellant) is BASF AG.
17 4. We are told that the subject patent under reexamination is the basis for
18 a patent infringement action captioned BASF AG v. Reilly Industries,
19 Inc., Civil Action No. IP01-1936-CY/K, currently pending in the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007