Appeal 2007-0712
Application 90/006,713
On 24 February 2004, Simplification filed a patent infringement
action against Block in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware based on U.S. Patent 6,697,787 (‘787), which is a child of the
involved reexamination application. On 15 March 2004, Block requested
reexamination of the ‘787 patent, which reexamination was granted on 3
June 2004. The civil action was stayed pending the reexamination.
Simplification appealed from a final rejection in that case, which is also
before us and is decided in a separate, concurrently mailed paper.
B. Issue
1) The first issue before us is whether the Examiner has sufficiently
demonstrated that claims 29-36 are unpatentable under the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1?
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that claims 29-36 are unpatentable under the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
2) Has the Examiner sufficiently demonstrated that claims 29-36 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2?
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that claims 29-36 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
3) The last issue before us is whether the Examiner has sufficiently
demonstrated that there is a basis for rejecting the claims based on the prior
art relied on by the Examiner?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013