Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
In 1994, Patent Owner filed an application which was stated to be a
continuation of the 1990, 1985, and 1982 applications. The 1994
application, as filed, contained the same "Detailed Description" as the
ancestor applications, but: (1) defined "multithreading"; and (2) omitted the
description in the 1990 application that the code could be a natural language,
such as English, and that lexical and syntactic analyses could be used for
checking spelling and grammar of a natural language. The 1994 application
issued as the '604 patent on the same day as the '603 patent in 1997.
In the reexamination proceeding, a different examiner determined that
the '604 patent claims, including the claims amended and added during
reexamination, were not entitled to the priority filing date benefit of the
1982, 1985, or 1990 applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 because the
applications, as filed, did not provide express or inherent written description
support under § 112, first paragraph, for the limitation "multithreading."
The Examiner rejected many of the claims as anticipated by the 1988 Krantz
reference which describes OS/2, and the remainder of the claims over Krantz
in combination with another reference.
The Examiner also rejected all of the claims as anticipated under
§ 102 over De Jong, or as unpatentable under § 103(a), over De Jong and
patents having filing dates before the 1982 filing date.
The Examiner also rejected numerous proposed amended and new
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on lack of written
description in the '604 patent. Of particular note, the Examiner concluded
that Patent Owner could not amend the '604 patent to add subject matter
from the 1990 application stating that the code processed by the program
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013