Ex Parte 5779400 et al - Page 36



            Appeal No. 2006-2084                                                                              
            Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360                                                              

                   "Nikcole Mini-Thin™ Grooving and Cutoff System" catalog, Nikcole, Inc.                     
                   (August 1992) (Exhibit 4 to request for reexamination).                                    
                   Kyocera catalog, published September 5, 1993 (Exhibit 6 of the request for                 
                   reexamination), cover and pages 2-6 and 11 ("Bates" numbered E613-618                      
                   and E623).  The insert screws noted in the tables on page 6 of the catalog are             
                   shown in a Kyocera engineering drawing and catalog page (Exhibit 7 of the                  
                   request for reexamination).                                                                
            The rejection                                                                                     
                   Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                    
            over Max Bar, ETCO, Nikcole, and Kyocera.  This is a new ground of rejection                      
            pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b).                                                                    
                   During the prosecution of the '400 patent, the examiner did not rely on the                
            same portion of ETCO used in this rejection and did not rely on Max Bar or                        
            Kyocera.  Nikcole was not of record in the '400 patent.  Therefore, a rejection of                
            this pre-November 2, 2002, reexamination, when the amendment to 35 U.S.C.                         
            § 303(a) became effective, expressly allowing consideration of previously cited or                
            considered patents or publications in determining the existence of a substantial new              
            question of patentability, is proper under USPTO guidelines.  See Guidelines for                  
            Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786,                    
            42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 Fed. Reg. 15346 (Mar. 31, 1999) ("the PTO                     

                                                    - 36 -                                                    




Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007