Appeal 2007-1432
Application 09/141,186
Patent 5,549,673
193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977). Appellant cannot now rely on the
reissue statute, in order to undo the consequences of his attorney’s deliberate
choice. In re Serenkin, 479 F.3d 1359, 1365, 81 USPQ2d 2011, 2014
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We reject reissue claims 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite, using our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b),
Part (c) of each of reissue claims 16-18 ends with the term
“medalized” which we believe should read –medialized–.
C. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …
- 49 -
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013