Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 the patent owner contends that the rejections are in error because Vandenberg,
2 which was applied against the claims in the prosecution of the original patent, does
3 not raise a substantial new question of patentability under previous 35 U.S.C. §
4 303(a) (2001). The patent owner further contends that even if Vandenberg raises a
5 substantial new question of patentability, it is not available as prior art because the
6 patentees’ earlier applications including the Italian priority applications provides
7 written description support for the now claimed subject matter.
8 The examiner, on the other hand, asserts that Vandenberg raises a substantial
9 new question of patentability because the examiner of the original patent attributed
10 an incorrect filing date for the claims and therefore withdrew the rejections based
11 on the mistaken belief that Vandenberg was not prior art. According to the
12 examiner, none of the proffered declarations are sufficient to make up for the
13 missing description in the earlier applications.
14 We conclude that the patent owner has not established reversible error on the
15 part of the examiner.
16
17 ISSUES
18 Does Vandenberg raise a substantial new question of patentability within the
19 meaning of previous 35 U.S.C. § 303(a) (2001)?
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013