Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
86. Mr. McLaughlin also testifies that Forschner increased its order and
advertised the device as described in McLaughlin's 239 patent. (Br. at 9;
McLaughlin Declaration filed 14 November 2004, at 2.)
87. McLaughlin also argues that "[t]he Patent at issue contains structural
changes over the prior art, and teaches a new use for the device. This
combination renders the Patent non-obvious." (Br. at 10.)
88. McLaughlin does not explain what, in its view, are the structural
changes, nor what is the "new use" of the claimed invention. (Br. at 10-11.)
Villwock, Eldridge, and Ray
89. We do not find it necessary to describe the Examiner's rejection over
the combined teachings of Villwock, Eldridge, and Ray.
McLaughlin's complaints about the Reexamination
90. McLaughlin complains that a substantial new question of patentability
was never identified by the requester or by the Examiner. (Br. at 15–16.)
91. More particularly, McLaughlin asserts that the prior art of record
contain each and every teaching found in the "new" references, and that the
new references therefore do not raise a substantial new question of
patentability. (Br. at 16–17.)
92. McLaughlin argues that the request for reexamination, at pages 2–6,
on which the Examiner relies for a statement of the substantial new question
of patentability, "contains conflicting and unclear statements." (Br. at 17.)
93. As a result, according to McLaughlin, it was unable to address the
Examiner's concerns, and was in effect deprived of one of his opportunities
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013