Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1
2 MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
3 DECISION ON APPEAL
4 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the final
5 rejection of Claim 113 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Aszodi.4
6 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
7 Although the patent under reexamination expired on July 28, 2004,
8 which was during the course of this reexamination proceeding, we retain
9 jurisdiction because a patent may be reexamined until the end of its period of
10 enforceability,5 which runs until six years after its expiration date. See
11 35 U.S.C. § 286.6
12 We affirm.
13 I. STATUS OF RELATED LITIGATION
14 The patent being reexamined (hereinafter “the ‘857 patent”) was the
15 basis for an infringement action styled Peng Tan v. Advanced Micro
16 Devices, Inc., C99-05228 MMC (N.D. Cal.). See Third Party Requestor’s
17 Statement In Support of the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Under
3 Claims 1-10 stand allowed.
4 G. Aszodi, J. Szabon, I. Janossy, and V. Szekely, High Resolution
Thermal Mapping of Microcircuits Using Nematic Liquid Crystals, 24 Solid-
State Electronics 1127-33 (1981). Br. Ex. C.
5 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(a) (2006) (“Any person may, at any time
during the period of enforceability of a patent, file a request for ex parte
reexamination by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior
art patents or printed publications cited under § 1.501.”).
6 35 U.S.C. § 286 (2000) provides in pertinent part: “Except as
otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement
committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or
counterclaim for infringement in the action.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013