Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 (Br. Ex. G) challenging the Examiner’s interpretation of Claim 11 and his
2 conclusion of anticipation by Aszodi. These declarations were accompanied
3 by a paper entitled “Showing of Good and Sufficient Reasons Why the
4 Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Is Necessary and Was Not Earlier
5 Presented.”
6 The Appeal Brief was filed on April 22, 2005.
7 In an advisory Office action (Paper No. 24) mailed on April 27, 2005,
8 the Examiner explained that he had considered the Lim and Jung
9 declarations but would maintain the rejection.
10 A first Examiner’s Answer was mailed on August 2, 2005, and a
11 Reply Brief was received on October 6, 2005. Following a February 13,
12 2006, remand by the Board for clarification of certain matters, the Examiner
13 mailed a revised Examiner’s Answer on April 20, 2006 (hereinafter
14 “Answer”).15 On May 5, 2006, Appellant filed a Supplemental Reply Brief
15 directed to the revisions in the Answer. The Reply Brief and the
16 Supplemental Reply Brief were entered and considered by the Examiner.16
17 The appeal was orally argued on January 9, 2007.
18 VI. ISSUES
19 The only question before us is whether Appellant has established that
20 the Examiner erred in rejecting Claim 11 as anticipated by Aszodi.
21 Resolution of this question requires consideration of the following issues:
22 1. What effect, if any, does the expiration of the ‘857 patent have on
23 the construction of Claim 11?
15 Of the two Examiner’s Answers, we have limited our consideration
to the revised version.
16 See Papers mailed November 18, 2005, and June 7, 2006.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013