Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 52. The Board affirmed the prior art rejections over Vandenberg and one
2 of the two 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 rejections (the rejection of claims 11
3 and 17) but not the other (the rejection of claims 11-17). Ex parte
4 Natta, Appeal No. 95-2683 (BPAI 1998), vacated in part and
5 remanded, In re Natta, No. 99-1183 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 1999).
6 53. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
7 Circuit, the Commissioner filed an “Unopposed Motion for Remand”
8 dated March 22, 1999, which was granted. In re Natta, No. 99-1183
9 (Fed. Cir., April 5, 1999).
10 54. On remand, the affirmance of the prior art rejections as applied to
11 claims 12-16 was vacated and the application was remanded to a
12 different examiner, the original examiner (Edward J. Smith) having
13 retired from federal service.
14 55. On September 21, 2001, more than 46 years after the filing of the first
15 United States application in the chain, the patentees submitted claims
16 in their present form.
17 56. These claims were allowed on October 2, 2001.
18 57. The ‘687 patent issued with 34 claims. (Amended appeal brief at 8.)
19
20
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013