Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 selected from the group consisting of ethyl, propyl, butyl,
2 and combinations of these alkyl groups, and the catalytic
3 titanium halide compound is a titanium chloride
4 compound.
5
6
7 Substantial New Question
8 61. The Director determined, on the basis of non-statutory double
9 patenting over the claims of two United States patents not cited in the
10 original examination, that a substantial new question of patentability
11 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 303(a) was raised with respect to
12 the claims of the subject patent. (June 7, 2002 reexamination order,
13 paper 1.)
14 62. In the original examination, the examiner determined that the
15 patentees were entitled to the filing date the Italian ‘109 application
16 and thus Vandenberg was antedated. (Office action mailed on July
17 13, 2001, paper 91 at 1; Reasons for Allowance mailed October 2,
18 2001, paper 95.)
19 63. The examiner of the original patent did not fully considered the
20 substantive issues of patentability of the claims over the prior art as a
21 result of the incorrect assessment of the effective filing date.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013