Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
2 (Appeal brief at 3.)
3 5. This merged reexamination resulted from two requests for
4 reexamination filed by the defendant (Reilly Industries, Inc.) in the
5 above-identified patent infringement action. (Appeal brief at 3-4.)
6 6. The first request was filed on February 22, 2003, asserting that a
7 substantial new question of patentability is raised by United States
8 patent 3,047,579 issued to Witman on July 31, 1962 either alone
9 (when correctly understood in light of the then existing technology for
10 commercially available hydrogen peroxide) or in combination with
11 United States patent 3,159,611 issued to Dunn et al. (Dunn) on
12 December 1, 1964. (Reexamination 90/006,554, request at 2.)
13 7. Reexamination 90/006,554 was ordered on April 11, 2003. (Paper 5
14 of 90/006,554.)
15 8. The second request was filed on December 23, 2003, alleging that
16 “[f]urther substantial new questions of patentability are raised by U.K.
17 1,079,846 to Pieper et al...and/or DE 1495819 to Pieper...in view
18 of...Witman...and/or R.A. Abramovitch, ‘Pyridine and Its Derivatives,
19 Supplement Part Two,’ John Wiley & Sons, 1974, p. 5...and/or U.S.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007