1 This document was not written with publication in mind
2 and is not binding precedent of the board.
3
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 _____________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 _____________
11
12 Ex parte GLOBAL PATENT HOLDINGS, LLC1
13 _____________
14
15 Appeal No. 2006-0698
16 Reexamination Control No. 90/005,7422
17 Patent No. 5,235,3413
18 ______________
19
20 HEARD: April 5, 2006
21 _______________
22
23 Before MARTIN, LEE, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
1 The current owner of the patent under reexamination. Supplemental Appeal Brief at 1.
PTO assignment records reveal that previous owners include IP Innovation, L.L.C., and
TechSearch, L.L.C.
2 This reexamination proceeding is the result of a request filed on June 9, 2000, by an
anonymous requester, c/o Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP.
A November 13, 2000, "Decision Dismissing Petition and Returning Improper Papers"
(Paper No. 8) held (1) that a third-party request for reexamination filed on July 3, 2000, by
Gabriel Katona will be treated as a prior art citation under 37 CFR § 1.510 and (2) dismissed a
duplicate request for reexamination filed by Gabriel Katona on August 29, 2000.
3 Issued October 12, 1993, based on Application 07/683,972, filed April 11, 1991,
naming as inventors: Anthony I. Rozmanith and Neil Berinson. The '341 patent identifies itself
as a continuation-in-part of Application 07/665,528, filed March 4, 1991. Appellant does not
contend that any of the rejected claims are entitled to benefit of the filing date of the '528
application.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007