Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 (hereinafter “Reexamination Request”), dated July 7,
2 2003, at 5-6.7 During the oral argument in this reexamination proceeding,
3 Appellant’s counsel explained that that action has been dismissed.
4 During that litigation, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. moved for
5 summary judgment against Claim 11 for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101
6 and § 112, second paragraph. Reexam. Request 5-6 & Exhibits 7-10. The
7 court denied the motion in an order entered April 24, 2000, on the ground
8 that “the issue presented is inextricably linked to the Court’s construction of
9 Claim 11 and that it is inappropriate to construe the claim based on the
10 record presented in connection with the instant motion.” Order Denying
11 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Invalidity of Claim 11.8
12 The question of whether Claim 11 complies with 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
13 and 112 has not been raised and could not properly have been raised for
14 consideration during this reexamination proceeding. Patentability
15 challenges to Claim 11 are limited to unpatentability over prior patents and
16 publication because no subject matter has been added to or deleted from the
7 The Reexamination Request was accompanied by a “Declaration
Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131” by David L. Burgess (Attachment 1), a list of
exhibits (Attachment 2), the exhibits themselves (Attachment 3) (hereinafter
“Reexam. Ex. __”), and a PTO-1449 form (Attachment 4) listing the
exhibits of Attachment 3 and other documents. Some of the Reexamination
Exhibits are also exhibits to the Brief.
8 This order is before us as the last two pages of the exhibits
(Attachment 3) to the Reexamination Request. These two pages follow
Exhibit 10 but are not marked as Exhibit 11. Although the list of exhibits
(Attachment 2) includes an Exhibit 11 identified as U.S. Patent 3,934,199 to
Channin, apparently no such exhibit was provided.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013