Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 40. On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s prior art rejections on
2 the basis that the patentees were not entitled to benefit of priority
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 119 because the claimed subject matter was not
4 described in either of the two Italian priority documents and,
5 therefore, Vandenberg was available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
6 102(e). Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 89-1569, slip op. at 2-6 (BPAI
7 1990).
8 41. The patentees did not appeal this ruling and the ‘600 application was
9 abandoned in favor of yet another application, namely 07/607,215
10 filed on October 29, 1990.
11 42. The patentees did not substantively prosecute the ‘215 application.
12 43. Consequently, the examiner entered a Notice of Abandonment on
13 August 27, 1991. (Paper 46.)
14 44. In 07/719,666 filed on June 24, 1991, the patentees did not
15 substantively amend the claims.
16 45. On September 19, 1991, the examiner entered a final Office action.
17 (Paper 48.)
18 46. On March 12, 1992, the patentees submitted additional expert
19 declarations in an attempt to establish that the Italian priority
20 documents describe the claimed subject matter. (Paper 54.)
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013