Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 Vandenberg under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
2 6(b)(2006). We AFFIRM.
3 In addition, we finalize our March 30, 2005 affirmance (paper 26) of all six
4 of the examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections (Final Office
5 Action mailed May 23, 2003, paper 14).
6
7 Summary
8 The ‘687 patent under reexamination has a long and complicated
9 prosecution history. In its brief, the patent owner faults the United States Patent
10 and Trademark Office (PTO) for the prolonged and complex prosecution history.
11 The record, however, demonstrates that the patent owner is equally, if not more,
12 culpable for the delays. For example, early during the prosecution in the 1950’s,
13 the examiner indicated allowability for certain subject matter. The patentees could
14 have ended prosecution by paying the issue fee at that time but chose not to do so.
15 On three separate occasions, the patentees appealed the examiner’s rejections to
16 this Board. Each time, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections. On
17 numerous occasions, the patentees abandoned their applications in favor of other
18 applications. In some of these continuing applications, there was no prosecution
19 designed to advance the application to issuance and, in at least one of these
20 applications, there was no prosecution at all. A significant portion of the delays
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013