Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
to respond with amendments; in particular, McLaughlin argues that the
Examiner should have considered McLaughlin's amendments filed after the
final rejection.
94. McLaughlin does not explain what it regards are the conflicting and
unclear statements in the request.
95. Finally, McLaughlin argues that he is being harassed by a spiteful
competitor, and that such harassment is contrary to the Congressional intent
of the statute. (Br. at 18–19.)
C. Discussion
Reexamination is provided for by 35 U.S.C. §§ 302-307, and is
subject to procedures established under 35 U.S.C. §§ 132 and 133. A patent
owner's right of appeal in a reexamination proceeding is provided for by
§§ 306 and 134(b). The latter provides for the "appeal from the final
rejection of any claim by the primary examiner." 35 U.S.C. § 134(b).
McLaughlin's complaint that its amendments filed after the final rejection
should have been entered, must be sought by petition to the Director. The
record indicates that McLaughlin was so advised, but that he chose not to
take that route. Similarly, McLaughlin's complaints about the propriety of
the reexamination itself must be pursued by petition to the Director. We can
only review the rejections appealed. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1367,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also Heinl v. Godici, 143
F.Supp.2d 593, (E.D. Va. 2001).
Turning to the merits, on appeal, McLaughlin bears the burden of
proving that the Examiner erred reversibly in making the rejections. During
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013