Appeal 2007-0393
Reexamination Control 90/006,786
Patent 6,497,843
1 was inappropriate. That opinion does not answer the question of our power
2 to reach the issue on appeal. Patlex was an appeal from a decision of the
3 District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the
4 propriety of the Director’s reexamination order. Patlex Corp. v.
5 Mossinghoff, 220 USPQ 342 (E.D. Penn 1983). No decision of the Board
6 was involved. Any challenge to the propriety of the reexamination could
7 have been raised by petition. See Heinl v Godici, 143 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D.
8 Va. 2001) (Reviewing the denial of a petition to the Director asserting that
9 reexamination was improper because there was no substantial new question
10 of patentability).
11 Patentee has failed to establish that we have jurisdiction to reach the
12 issue relating to the propriety of reexamination.
13 DECISION
14 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 is affirmed.
15 AFFIRMED
lp
- 17 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013