Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 Procedural History
2 6. This is the second time an appeal has been taken in this Director-
3 ordered reexamination.
4 7. In the first appeal, the Board affirmed all six of the examiner’s
5 rejections based on the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
6 double patenting and, pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR §
7 41.50(b), also entered a new ground of rejection against claims 1-52
8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). (March 30, 2005 Decision;
9 Paper 26.)
10 8. Because the Board’s decision included new grounds of rejection, it
11 was not “considered final for judicial review.”
12 9. The patent owner could have, but did not, seek an immediate
13 rehearing of our decision pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)(2) in order to
14 expedite judicial review of the affirmed double patenting rejections
15 and new grounds of rejection.
16 10. Instead, the patent owner reopened prosecution with respect to the
17 new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)(1).
18 11. On reexamination, the examiner determined that the patent owner’s
19 newly submitted evidence was insufficient to overcome our new
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013