Please use your
key to return to the previous page.
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information |
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
For information concerning PCT member countries, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1331 O.G. 54, on June 10, 2008.
European Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The European Patent Office (EPO) may act as the International Searching
Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving
Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or
resident of the United States of America. However, the EPO is no longer
a competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Article 16(3), for
international applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals on or
after 01 March 2002 in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office, and where
the application contains one or more claims directed to the field of
business methods. For the definition of what the EPO considers to be
precluded subject matter in the field of business methods, applicants
should see the "Notice from the President of the European Patent
Office", dated 26 November 2001, and which was published as Annex A in
the "Notice Concerning EPO Competence to Act as PCT Authority" in
the Official Gazette at 1255 O.G. 878, on February 19, 2002.
The European Patent Office may act as the International
Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) for an international application
filed in the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau
as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a
national or resident of the United States of America, provided that the
European Patent Office acted as the International Searching Authority.
However, the EPO is no longer a competent IPEA, within the meaning of
PCT Article 32(3), for international applications filed by U.S.
residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office where
the corresponding demand is filed with the EPO on or after 01 March
2002, and where the application contains one or more claims directed to
the fields of business methods.
The EPO resumed its competence as an International Searching
Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority, effective
January 1, 2004, for international applications filed by nationals or
residents of the United States of America where the application
contains one or more claims relating to the field of biotechnology.
This change was announced in the Official Gazette at 1277 O.G. 230, on
December 30, 2003.
The EPO resumed its competence as an International Preliminary
Examining Authority, effective July 1, 2004, for demands filed by U.S.
residents or nationals on or after July 1, 2004, for international
applications filed by nationals or residents of the United States of
America where the application contains one or more claims relating to
the field of telecommunications. This change was announced in the
Official Gazette at 1277 O.G. 230, on December 30, 2003.
The search fee of the European Patent Office was increased,
effective April 1, 2008, and was announced in the Official Gazette
at 1329 O.G. 172, on April 22, 2008.
Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority
For use of the Korean Intellectual Property Office as an International
Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for
international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office,
see the notice appearing in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G. 1261 on
January 17, 2006.
The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was increased,
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 3 |
effective January 1, 2008, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1327 O.G. 64, on February 12, 2008.
Fees
The search fee for the USPTO was increased, effective November 9, 2007,
and was announced in the Federal Register on September 10, 2007. The fee
for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority was
established, effective November 9, 2007, and was announced in the Federal
Register on September 10, 2007.
International filing fees were increased, effective July 1, 2008,
and were announced in the Official Gazette at 1331 O.G. 57, on June 10,
2008.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of July 1, 2008, is as
follows:
International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees:
Transmittal fee $300.00
Search fee
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as
International Searching Authority (ISA)
- Search fee $1,800.00
- Supplemental search fee, per additional
invention (payable only upon invitation) $1,800.00
European Patent Office as ISA $2,496.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA $244.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,338.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY
zip file $1,237.00
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip
file $1,137.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $15.00
Sequence listing and/or sequence-related table on
electronic medium only $6,000.00
Restoration of Priority
Filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority under § 1.452 $1,410.00
International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
Handling fee $201.00
Handlinfg fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee reduction.pdf $20.10
Preliminary Examination Fee
USPTO as International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA)
- USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I $600.00
- USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I $750.00
- Additional preliminary examination fee,
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 4 |
per additional invention
(payable only upon invitation) $600.00
U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering
the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's
web site (www.uspto.gov).
May 9, 2008 JON W. DUDAS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable |
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on June 21, 2005
for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,907,617 through 6,910,221
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on June 19, 2001
for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,247,177 through 6,249,914
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on June 17, 1997
for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 5,638,544 through 5,640,710
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set
forth in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g).
To obtain the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO
Contact Center at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule
posted on the USPTO Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage
at www.uspto.gov, click on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down
and click on the "Fees, USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee
schedule.
Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON May 14, 2008
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
5,515,543 08/274,237 05/14/96
5,515,544 08/380,623 05/14/96
5,515,548 08/236,119 05/14/96
5,515,557 08/533,320 05/14/96
5,515,562 08/265,403 05/14/96
5,515,565 08/247,160 05/14/96
5,515,577 08/204,388 05/14/96
5,515,578 08/357,547 05/14/96
5,515,579 08/465,633 05/14/96
5,515,581 08/243,300 05/14/96
5,515,586 08/363,526 05/14/96
5,515,599 08/237,301 05/14/96
5,515,618 08/284,569 05/14/96
5,515,623 08/282,987 05/14/96
5,515,636 08/336,442 05/14/96
5,515,640 08/277,471 05/14/96
5,515,641 08/433,175 05/14/96
5,515,644 08/415,263 05/14/96
5,515,647 08/370,074 05/14/96
5,515,648 08/244,992 05/14/96
5,515,662 08/356,203 05/14/96
5,515,663 08/223,768 05/14/96
5,515,668 08/116,368 05/14/96
5,515,669 08/382,895 05/14/96
5,515,673 08/446,334 05/14/96
5,515,685 08/391,013 05/14/96
5,515,690 08/388,219 05/14/96
5,515,692 08/415,256 05/14/96
5,515,695 08/398,131 05/14/96
5,515,707 08/275,444 05/14/96
5,515,709 08/451,275 05/14/96
5,515,710 08/516,250 05/14/96
5,515,715 08/479,646 05/14/96
5,515,721 08/294,906 05/14/96
5,515,733 08/176,930 05/14/96
5,515,735 08/367,603 05/14/96
5,515,737 08/436,496 05/14/96
5,515,738 08/325,673 05/14/96
5,515,739 08/192,483 05/14/96
5,515,756 08/222,958 05/14/96
5,515,757 08/022,149 05/14/96
5,515,762 08/395,086 05/14/96
5,515,780 08/255,978 05/14/96
5,515,781 08/512,303 05/14/96
5,515,782 08/156,105 05/14/96
5,515,784 08/291,961 05/14/96
5,515,787 08/369,511 05/14/96
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 7 |
5,515,789 08/283,947 05/14/96
5,515,794 08/376,520 05/14/96
5,515,797 08/213,841 05/14/96
5,515,803 08/439,008 05/14/96
5,515,814 08/524,264 05/14/96
5,515,821 08/344,784 05/14/96
5,515,823 08/340,868 05/14/96
5,515,824 08/211,318 05/14/96
5,515,839 08/449,471 05/14/96
5,515,842 08/287,158 05/14/96
5,515,847 08/247,311 05/14/96
5,515,858 08/290,971 05/14/96
5,515,869 08/412,217 05/14/96
5,515,874 08/363,256 05/14/96
5,515,877 08/225,571 05/14/96
5,515,879 08/346,606 05/14/96
5,515,881 08/255,400 05/14/96
5,515,909 08/373,304 05/14/96
5,515,920 08/330,373 05/14/96
5,515,936 08/524,854 05/14/96
5,515,941 08/242,331 05/14/96
5,515,943 08/415,931 05/14/96
5,515,952 08/349,574 05/14/96
5,515,956 08/263,995 05/14/96
5,515,959 08/233,076 05/14/96
5,515,960 08/464,699 05/14/96
5,515,965 08/438,211 05/14/96
5,515,987 08/502,168 05/14/96
5,515,996 08/254,142 05/14/96
5,516,006 08/099,386 05/14/96
5,516,010 08/299,814 05/14/96
5,516,015 08/349,197 05/14/96
5,516,016 08/217,259 05/14/96
5,516,028 08/337,192 05/14/96
5,516,032 08/341,057 05/14/96
5,516,035 08/512,891 05/14/96
5,516,045 08/341,591 05/14/96
5,516,051 08/306,699 05/14/96
5,516,052 08/208,989 05/14/96
5,516,054 08/240,678 05/14/96
5,516,056 08/310,763 05/14/96
5,516,057 08/275,402 05/14/96
5,516,061 08/308,891 05/14/96
5,516,068 07/923,065 05/14/96
5,516,076 08/258,045 05/14/96
5,516,078 08/291,380 05/14/96
5,516,082 08/258,491 05/14/96
5,516,088 08/273,383 05/14/96
5,516,093 08/300,908 05/14/96
5,516,107 08/188,811 05/14/96
5,516,115 08/362,957 05/14/96
5,516,122 08/164,337 05/14/96
5,516,123 08/451,404 05/14/96
5,516,126 08/401,947 05/14/96
5,516,134 08/309,107 05/14/96
5,516,135 08/455,839 05/14/96
5,516,143 08/262,883 05/14/96
5,516,147 08/321,786 05/14/96
5,516,152 08/296,960 05/14/96
5,516,155 08/429,183 05/14/96
5,516,158 07/855,850 05/14/96
5,516,162 08/521,014 05/14/96
5,516,169 08/391,126 05/14/96
5,516,178 08/362,205 05/14/96
5,516,188 08/314,654 05/14/96
5,516,190 08/368,196 05/14/96
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 8 |
5,516,195 08/357,235 05/14/96
5,516,200 08/413,987 05/14/96
5,516,202 08/076,355 05/14/96
5,516,203 08/289,466 05/14/96
5,516,206 08/211,812 05/14/96
5,516,209 08/340,197 05/14/96
5,516,224 08/305,192 05/14/96
5,516,227 08/271,450 05/14/96
5,516,244 08/534,304 05/14/96
5,516,245 08/367,995 05/14/96
5,516,246 08/383,915 05/14/96
5,516,247 08/292,282 05/14/96
5,516,256 07/966,746 05/14/96
5,516,260 08/320,096 05/14/96
5,516,270 08/241,672 05/14/96
5,516,275 08/301,486 05/14/96
5,516,276 08/315,119 05/14/96
5,516,278 08/400,702 05/14/96
5,516,299 08/162,614 05/14/96
5,516,310 08/242,852 05/14/96
5,516,313 08/401,095 05/14/96
5,516,314 08/402,337 05/14/96
5,516,317 08/489,137 05/14/96
5,516,318 08/349,207 05/14/96
5,516,321 08/243,593 05/14/96
5,516,322 08/370,407 05/14/96
5,516,362 08/462,736 05/14/96
5,516,371 08/310,532 05/14/96
5,516,377 08/179,736 05/14/96
5,516,378 08/420,280 05/14/96
5,516,395 08/172,403 05/14/96
5,516,409 08/372,136 05/14/96
5,516,413 08/115,380 05/14/96
5,516,424 08/283,870 05/14/96
5,516,441 08/233,666 05/14/96
5,516,442 08/514,155 05/14/96
5,516,449 08/313,226 05/14/96
5,516,468 08/339,457 05/14/96
5,516,469 08/217,806 05/14/96
5,516,470 08/423,315 05/14/96
5,516,478 08/146,896 05/14/96
5,516,490 08/243,890 05/14/96
5,516,499 08/403,027 05/14/96
5,516,504 07/983,520 05/14/96
5,516,520 08/253,592 05/14/96
5,516,521 08/288,701 05/14/96
5,516,526 08/408,840 05/14/96
5,516,527 07/960,186 05/14/96
5,516,528 08/372,750 05/14/96
5,516,530 08/244,700 05/14/96
5,516,540 08/206,111 05/14/96
5,516,554 08/150,633 05/14/96
5,516,555 08/424,677 05/14/96
5,516,560 08/326,390 05/14/96
5,516,566 08/367,584 05/14/96
5,516,569 08/132,424 05/14/96
5,516,570 08/334,922 05/14/96
5,516,571 08/115,344 05/14/96
5,516,577 08/058,214 05/14/96
5,516,585 08/067,337 05/14/96
5,516,587 08/247,690 05/14/96
5,516,592 08/376,260 05/14/96
5,516,605 08/344,891 05/14/96
5,516,606 08/388,301 05/14/96
5,516,607 08/355,028 05/14/96
5,516,616 08/361,343 05/14/96
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 9 |
5,516,627 08/393,456 05/14/96
5,516,629 08/311,125 05/14/96
5,516,632 08/116,733 05/14/96
5,516,633 07/927,562 05/14/96
5,516,642 07/976,872 05/14/96
5,516,650 08/225,253 05/14/96
5,516,662 08/439,074 05/14/96
5,516,664 08/161,224 05/14/96
5,516,669 08/181,164 05/14/96
5,516,670 08/319,521 05/14/96
5,516,672 08/109,985 05/14/96
5,516,673 08/196,390 05/14/96
5,516,674 08/298,426 05/14/96
5,516,676 08/077,979 05/14/96
5,516,682 07/981,525 05/14/96
5,516,710 08/339,184 05/14/96
5,516,712 08/330,955 05/14/96
5,516,715 08/330,001 05/14/96
5,516,730 08/296,537 05/14/96
5,516,745 08/248,580 05/14/96
5,516,749 08/180,721 05/14/96
5,516,751 08/449,321 05/14/96
5,516,752 08/158,486 05/14/96
5,516,755 08/287,021 05/14/96
5,516,762 08/137,685 05/14/96
5,516,782 08/443,605 05/14/96
5,516,789 08/421,125 05/14/96
5,516,794 08/399,852 05/14/96
5,516,796 08/217,515 05/14/96
5,516,799 08/277,349 05/14/96
5,516,800 08/154,481 05/14/96
5,516,820 08/478,120 05/14/96
5,516,822 08/200,812 05/14/96
5,516,835 08/125,192 05/14/96
5,516,841 08/431,011 05/14/96
5,516,843 08/251,714 05/14/96
5,516,844 08/421,600 05/14/96
5,516,845 08/349,791 05/14/96
5,516,846 08/519,854 05/14/96
5,516,850 08/315,655 05/14/96
5,516,879 08/413,025 05/14/96
5,516,883 08/164,697 05/14/96
5,516,889 08/405,933 05/14/96
5,516,890 08/312,821 05/14/96
5,516,894 08/293,563 05/14/96
5,516,900 08/305,881 05/14/96
5,516,904 08/384,886 05/14/96
5,516,910 08/245,789 05/14/96
5,516,915 08/304,740 05/14/96
5,516,916 08/454,892 05/14/96
5,516,917 08/255,275 05/14/96
5,516,919 08/423,988 05/14/96
5,516,923 08/222,893 05/14/96
5,516,934 08/495,797 05/14/96
5,516,940 08/235,355 05/14/96
5,516,942 08/351,242 05/14/96
5,516,945 08/292,369 05/14/96
5,516,946 08/392,426 05/14/96
5,516,950 08/389,709 05/14/96
5,516,955 08/220,313 05/14/96
5,516,967 08/380,618 05/14/96
5,516,969 08/376,980 05/14/96
5,516,970 08/299,840 05/14/96
5,516,981 08/269,656 05/14/96
5,516,986 08/284,359 05/14/96
5,516,987 08/244,335 05/14/96
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 10 |
5,516,989 08/387,283 05/14/96
5,516,992 08/313,206 05/14/96
5,516,998 08/174,402 05/14/96
5,517,011 08/342,467 05/14/96
5,517,022 08/237,189 05/14/96
5,517,026 08/376,169 05/14/96
5,517,037 08/142,306 05/14/96
5,517,039 08/339,034 05/14/96
5,517,043 08/328,922 05/14/96
5,517,066 08/191,582 05/14/96
5,517,072 08/320,736 05/14/96
5,517,073 08/277,026 05/14/96
5,517,078 08/241,588 05/14/96
5,517,083 08/361,205 05/14/96
5,517,084 08/280,273 05/14/96
5,517,085 08/142,667 05/14/96
5,517,088 07/862,020 05/14/96
5,517,092 08/211,654 05/14/96
5,517,096 08/443,692 05/14/96
5,517,098 08/240,116 05/14/96
5,517,099 08/249,329 05/14/96
5,517,101 08/162,623 05/14/96
5,517,110 08/417,900 05/14/96
5,517,116 08/175,459 05/14/96
5,517,124 08/289,266 05/14/96
5,517,127 08/370,278 05/14/96
5,517,130 08/359,902 05/14/96
5,517,164 08/491,772 05/14/96
5,517,165 08/202,952 05/14/96
5,517,169 08/323,649 05/14/96
5,517,181 08/289,342 05/14/96
5,517,182 08/309,163 05/14/96
5,517,186 08/159,189 05/14/96
5,517,190 08/191,213 05/14/96
5,517,192 08/319,382 05/14/96
5,517,199 08/439,482 05/14/96
5,517,204 08/027,224 05/14/96
5,517,219 08/005,982 05/14/96
5,517,231 08/129,892 05/14/96
5,517,232 08/271,521 05/14/96
5,517,253 08/335,805 05/14/96
5,517,256 08/233,915 05/14/96
5,517,268 08/368,508 05/14/96
5,517,279 08/114,732 05/14/96
5,517,280 08/226,784 05/14/96
5,517,293 08/431,977 05/14/96
5,517,295 08/063,775 05/14/96
5,517,303 08/027,799 05/14/96
5,517,318 07/961,330 05/14/96
5,517,321 08/270,962 05/14/96
5,517,335 08/320,541 05/14/96
5,517,352 08/021,600 05/14/96
5,517,358 08/304,513 05/14/96
5,517,362 08/230,105 05/14/96
5,517,364 08/411,154 05/14/96
5,517,370 08/371,513 05/14/96
5,517,372 08/124,062 05/14/96
5,517,391 08/298,590 05/14/96
5,517,394 08/512,817 05/14/96
5,517,400 08/306,256 05/14/96
5,517,420 08/328,762 05/14/96
5,517,424 08/221,746 05/14/96
5,517,428 08/236,087 05/14/96
5,517,437 08/263,814 05/14/96
5,517,474 08/203,254 05/14/96
5,517,484 08/193,502 05/14/96
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 11 |
5,517,485 08/202,442 05/14/96
5,517,490 08/244,504 05/14/96
5,517,492 07/822,357 05/14/96
5,517,503 08/075,257 05/14/96
5,517,506 08/218,282 05/14/96
5,517,507 08/161,881 05/14/96
5,517,522 08/167,979 05/14/96
5,517,528 08/285,030 05/14/96
5,517,537 08/292,320 05/14/96
5,517,544 08/206,281 05/14/96
5,517,546 08/519,800 05/14/96
5,517,554 08/273,044 05/14/96
5,517,559 08/125,124 05/14/96
5,517,569 08/210,200 05/14/96
5,517,597 08/085,522 05/14/96
5,517,604 07/852,768 05/14/96
5,517,619 08/203,265 05/14/96
5,517,630 08/262,379 05/14/96
5,517,631 08/086,824 05/14/96
5,517,632 08/110,423 05/14/96
5,517,637 08/352,934 05/14/96
5,517,650 08/358,887 05/14/96
5,517,653 07/888,326 05/14/96
5,517,654 07/888,936 05/14/96
5,517,666 08/185,367 05/14/96
5,517,667 08/076,601 05/14/96
5,517,675 08/387,637 05/14/96
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON May 09, 2008
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,058,503 09/045,011 05/09/00
6,058,504 09/114,809 05/09/00
6,058,510 09/258,331 05/09/00
6,058,514 09/187,011 05/09/00
6,058,516 09/264,810 05/09/00
6,058,524 09/033,384 05/09/00
6,058,527 09/171,796 05/09/00
6,058,528 09/407,407 05/09/00
6,058,529 09/089,600 05/09/00
6,058,532 09/050,629 05/09/00
6,058,533 09/156,017 05/09/00
6,058,539 09/183,746 05/09/00
6,058,543 09/209,626 05/09/00
6,058,545 09/105,433 05/09/00
6,058,547 08/796,511 05/09/00
6,058,551 09/238,606 05/09/00
6,058,560 09/128,536 05/09/00
6,058,568 09/173,594 05/09/00
6,058,569 09/295,601 05/09/00
6,058,571 09/292,847 05/09/00
6,058,573 09/136,546 05/09/00
6,058,574 09/142,739 05/09/00
6,058,577 09/151,589 05/09/00
6,058,585 09/164,038 05/09/00
6,058,591 09/262,406 05/09/00
6,058,606 09/054,824 05/09/00
6,058,610 09/225,286 05/09/00
6,058,620 09/087,827 05/09/00
6,058,625 09/314,086 05/09/00
6,058,629 09/071,724 05/09/00
6,058,630 09/368,944 05/09/00
6,058,638 09/198,724 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 12 |
6,058,643 09/306,301 05/09/00
6,058,644 09/385,728 05/09/00
6,058,645 09/345,861 05/09/00
6,058,656 09/225,770 05/09/00
6,058,658 09/168,264 05/09/00
6,058,672 09/089,678 05/09/00
6,058,677 09/012,175 05/09/00
6,058,686 09/177,891 05/09/00
6,058,687 09/211,375 05/09/00
6,058,688 09/076,040 05/09/00
6,058,709 08/991,630 05/09/00
6,058,714 09/097,589 05/09/00
6,058,715 08/987,737 05/09/00
6,058,720 09/195,804 05/09/00
6,058,723 09/257,716 05/09/00
6,058,733 09/061,216 05/09/00
6,058,738 09/173,892 05/09/00
6,058,742 09/167,667 05/09/00
6,058,744 09/200,529 05/09/00
6,058,749 08/964,000 05/09/00
6,058,750 09/330,037 05/09/00
6,058,751 09/149,334 05/09/00
6,058,752 09/296,693 05/09/00
6,058,756 09/298,678 05/09/00
6,058,768 09/019,963 05/09/00
6,058,775 08/943,467 05/09/00
6,058,781 09/133,536 05/09/00
6,058,786 09/274,862 05/09/00
6,058,787 08/879,144 05/09/00
6,058,792 09/269,285 05/09/00
6,058,802 09/056,192 05/09/00
6,058,804 09/116,687 05/09/00
6,058,805 09/109,618 05/09/00
6,058,807 09/015,664 05/09/00
6,058,809 09/062,835 05/09/00
6,058,816 08/810,463 05/09/00
6,058,822 09/101,487 05/09/00
6,058,823 08/981,205 05/09/00
6,058,833 09/379,302 05/09/00
6,058,834 09/240,172 05/09/00
6,058,843 08/930,485 05/09/00
6,058,848 09/037,201 05/09/00
6,058,852 09/310,115 05/09/00
6,058,853 09/058,012 05/09/00
6,058,856 09/053,136 05/09/00
6,058,861 09/352,770 05/09/00
6,058,863 09/098,677 05/09/00
6,058,864 09/180,608 05/09/00
6,058,865 09/002,431 05/09/00
6,058,867 09/135,382 05/09/00
6,058,870 09/105,436 05/09/00
6,058,872 09/177,328 05/09/00
6,058,877 08/932,325 05/09/00
6,058,878 09/098,895 05/09/00
6,058,881 08/996,527 05/09/00
6,058,882 09/305,471 05/09/00
6,058,884 09/140,093 05/09/00
6,058,887 09/186,821 05/09/00
6,058,892 09/137,810 05/09/00
6,058,897 09/281,981 05/09/00
6,058,913 09/107,520 05/09/00
6,058,914 09/107,324 05/09/00
6,058,922 09/225,030 05/09/00
6,058,925 09/236,033 05/09/00
6,058,926 09/104,859 05/09/00
6,058,941 09/336,647 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 13 |
6,058,942 09/348,231 05/09/00
6,058,946 08/957,667 05/09/00
6,058,948 09/035,505 05/09/00
6,058,954 08/642,729 05/09/00
6,058,964 08/990,932 05/09/00
6,058,978 08/682,389 05/09/00
6,058,982 09/065,075 05/09/00
6,058,985 09/151,845 05/09/00
6,059,001 08/472,574 05/09/00
6,059,002 09/122,039 05/09/00
6,059,003 09/124,100 05/09/00
6,059,006 09/148,880 05/09/00
6,059,021 09/208,829 05/09/00
6,059,024 09/029,428 05/09/00
6,059,043 09/014,721 05/09/00
6,059,049 09/383,071 05/09/00
6,059,053 09/029,396 05/09/00
6,059,057 09/296,611 05/09/00
6,059,060 09/029,474 05/09/00
6,059,067 08/857,563 05/09/00
6,059,077 09/108,504 05/09/00
6,059,080 09/078,216 05/09/00
6,059,084 09/296,710 05/09/00
6,059,088 08/948,954 05/09/00
6,059,090 09/059,694 05/09/00
6,059,097 08/949,057 05/09/00
6,059,100 09/349,821 05/09/00
6,059,110 09/249,381 05/09/00
6,059,113 08/897,506 05/09/00
6,059,124 09/036,787 05/09/00
6,059,126 09/275,007 05/09/00
6,059,136 09/032,929 05/09/00
6,059,137 09/101,784 05/09/00
6,059,139 08/621,150 05/09/00
6,059,140 09/263,127 05/09/00
6,059,144 09/252,232 05/09/00
6,059,145 09/106,886 05/09/00
6,059,146 09/124,433 05/09/00
6,059,148 09/178,647 05/09/00
6,059,152 09/045,766 05/09/00
6,059,156 09/155,150 05/09/00
6,059,161 09/377,549 05/09/00
6,059,164 09/018,705 05/09/00
6,059,170 09/104,572 05/09/00
6,059,179 09/062,311 05/09/00
6,059,182 09/310,233 05/09/00
6,059,201 09/123,954 05/09/00
6,059,211 09/114,693 05/09/00
6,059,217 09/217,237 05/09/00
6,059,219 09/188,209 05/09/00
6,059,221 08/611,416 05/09/00
6,059,224 09/102,315 05/09/00
6,059,229 09/038,062 05/09/00
6,059,233 09/000,896 05/09/00
6,059,236 09/099,852 05/09/00
6,059,237 09/069,007 05/09/00
6,059,239 09/122,873 05/09/00
6,059,243 09/020,541 05/09/00
6,059,244 09/034,558 05/09/00
6,059,245 09/100,361 05/09/00
6,059,247 09/154,860 05/09/00
6,059,249 09/088,591 05/09/00
6,059,251 09/120,070 05/09/00
6,059,256 08/801,931 05/09/00
6,059,263 09/181,600 05/09/00
6,059,267 09/208,027 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 14 |
6,059,268 09/072,776 05/09/00
6,059,275 08/892,172 05/09/00
6,059,281 08/941,631 05/09/00
6,059,292 08/853,502 05/09/00
6,059,298 09/338,501 05/09/00
6,059,299 09/332,386 05/09/00
6,059,304 09/091,173 05/09/00
6,059,308 08/824,120 05/09/00
6,059,309 09/048,353 05/09/00
6,059,311 09/027,452 05/09/00
6,059,312 09/374,354 05/09/00
6,059,320 09/301,193 05/09/00
6,059,322 09/069,750 05/09/00
6,059,332 09/234,579 05/09/00
6,059,339 09/055,696 05/09/00
6,059,341 09/413,165 05/09/00
6,059,344 09/373,415 05/09/00
6,059,346 08/994,262 05/09/00
6,059,347 09/252,756 05/09/00
6,059,348 09/208,303 05/09/00
6,059,349 09/353,095 05/09/00
6,059,351 09/199,298 05/09/00
6,059,355 09/310,750 05/09/00
6,059,358 09/222,262 05/09/00
6,059,366 09/312,817 05/09/00
6,059,367 09/121,945 05/09/00
6,059,370 09/156,156 05/09/00
6,059,378 08/846,859 05/09/00
6,059,381 08/994,900 05/09/00
6,059,383 09/034,148 05/09/00
6,059,385 09/192,822 05/09/00
6,059,391 08/912,853 05/09/00
6,059,399 08/919,856 05/09/00
6,059,402 08/838,434 05/09/00
6,059,403 08/771,801 05/09/00
6,059,409 09/243,463 05/09/00
6,059,414 09/351,628 05/09/00
6,059,417 09/205,888 05/09/00
6,059,425 09/204,122 05/09/00
6,059,426 09/182,119 05/09/00
6,059,429 09/087,595 05/09/00
6,059,433 09/081,077 05/09/00
6,059,435 09/168,121 05/09/00
6,059,436 09/113,342 05/09/00
6,059,437 09/372,814 05/09/00
6,059,445 09/058,224 05/09/00
6,059,449 09/129,330 05/09/00
6,059,459 09/081,222 05/09/00
6,059,465 09/073,440 05/09/00
6,059,466 09/247,283 05/09/00
6,059,467 09/167,708 05/09/00
6,059,470 09/162,027 05/09/00
6,059,476 09/151,929 05/09/00
6,059,477 09/257,337 05/09/00
6,059,478 09/065,996 05/09/00
6,059,482 08/787,221 05/09/00
6,059,483 09/128,261 05/09/00
6,059,488 08/853,332 05/09/00
6,059,497 09/382,840 05/09/00
6,059,500 09/245,089 05/09/00
6,059,510 09/331,024 05/09/00
6,059,512 08/984,798 05/09/00
6,059,514 09/098,680 05/09/00
6,059,518 09/213,741 05/09/00
6,059,527 09/125,773 05/09/00
6,059,534 09/117,687 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 15 |
6,059,535 09/012,101 05/09/00
6,059,537 08/980,863 05/09/00
6,059,541 09/038,365 05/09/00
6,059,547 09/060,380 05/09/00
6,059,550 09/101,397 05/09/00
6,059,556 09/116,585 05/09/00
6,059,560 09/034,613 05/09/00
6,059,562 09/133,133 05/09/00
6,059,566 09/122,296 05/09/00
6,059,567 09/022,057 05/09/00
6,059,568 08/913,275 05/09/00
6,059,571 09/183,216 05/09/00
6,059,585 09/181,884 05/09/00
6,059,587 09/165,768 05/09/00
6,059,589 09/301,088 05/09/00
6,059,599 09/176,625 05/09/00
6,059,601 08/937,079 05/09/00
6,059,604 09/222,168 05/09/00
6,059,609 09/155,665 05/09/00
6,059,616 09/174,330 05/09/00
6,059,618 09/207,518 05/09/00
6,059,626 09/263,627 05/09/00
6,059,636 09/112,287 05/09/00
6,059,639 09/260,530 05/09/00
6,059,640 09/014,699 05/09/00
6,059,642 09/163,487 05/09/00
6,059,645 09/069,583 05/09/00
6,059,650 09/060,033 05/09/00
6,059,656 09/085,938 05/09/00
6,059,660 09/015,666 05/09/00
6,059,665 09/094,431 05/09/00
6,059,670 08/880,347 05/09/00
6,059,675 08/899,282 05/09/00
6,059,676 09/168,486 05/09/00
6,059,693 08/610,990 05/09/00
6,059,700 09/018,101 05/09/00
6,059,704 09/163,086 05/09/00
6,059,705 08/953,160 05/09/00
6,059,712 09/310,500 05/09/00
6,059,717 09/128,213 05/09/00
6,059,728 08/987,721 05/09/00
6,059,729 09/175,120 05/09/00
6,059,736 09/028,832 05/09/00
6,059,753 09/086,186 05/09/00
6,059,757 08/665,635 05/09/00
6,059,761 09/117,086 05/09/00
6,059,763 09/055,157 05/09/00
6,059,770 08/984,014 05/09/00
6,059,784 09/179,355 05/09/00
6,059,794 09/067,510 05/09/00
6,059,809 09/086,382 05/09/00
6,059,821 08/672,349 05/09/00
6,059,835 08/876,160 05/09/00
6,059,840 08/819,382 05/09/00
6,059,849 09/258,593 05/09/00
6,059,864 09/179,350 05/09/00
6,059,878 09/264,235 05/09/00
6,059,887 09/054,511 05/09/00
6,059,897 09/194,391 05/09/00
6,059,916 08/886,332 05/09/00
6,059,926 08/783,284 05/09/00
6,059,933 08/428,709 05/09/00
6,059,934 09/061,492 05/09/00
6,059,935 09/218,572 05/09/00
6,059,937 08/654,055 05/09/00
6,059,942 09/057,129 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 16 |
6,059,950 08/949,322 05/09/00
6,059,952 09/111,155 05/09/00
6,059,978 09/073,540 05/09/00
6,059,982 08/940,916 05/09/00
6,059,993 08/992,633 05/09/00
6,059,994 09/092,962 05/09/00
6,059,996 09/135,267 05/09/00
6,060,005 09/148,256 05/09/00
6,060,008 09/068,071 05/09/00
6,060,012 09/007,644 05/09/00
6,060,017 09/227,256 05/09/00
6,060,032 09/123,937 05/09/00
6,060,042 09/324,712 05/09/00
6,060,047 08/471,045 05/09/00
6,060,053 08/654,844 05/09/00
6,060,054 08/630,172 05/09/00
6,060,062 09/090,263 05/09/00
6,060,068 09/144,581 05/09/00
6,060,069 09/071,578 05/09/00
6,060,073 09/100,744 05/09/00
6,060,074 08/209,268 05/09/00
6,060,088 09/390,196 05/09/00
6,060,090 08/944,750 05/09/00
6,060,092 08/839,518 05/09/00
6,060,093 08/840,435 05/09/00
6,060,098 09/149,185 05/09/00
6,060,099 09/243,493 05/09/00
6,060,111 09/147,727 05/09/00
6,060,112 09/151,654 05/09/00
6,060,114 09/036,450 05/09/00
6,060,120 08/902,195 05/09/00
6,060,122 08/913,930 05/09/00
6,060,123 09/119,471 05/09/00
6,060,127 09/052,773 05/09/00
6,060,141 08/873,313 05/09/00
6,060,142 09/255,243 05/09/00
6,060,146 08/931,750 05/09/00
6,060,160 08/906,748 05/09/00
6,060,167 09/027,085 05/09/00
6,060,176 08/936,750 05/09/00
6,060,182 09/090,927 05/09/00
6,060,186 09/045,850 05/09/00
6,060,187 09/056,686 05/09/00
6,060,189 09/090,054 05/09/00
6,060,194 08/987,078 05/09/00
6,060,195 09/124,916 05/09/00
6,060,198 09/087,604 05/09/00
6,060,200 09/018,129 05/09/00
6,060,201 09/422,465 05/09/00
6,060,203 08/703,536 05/09/00
6,060,212 09/096,036 05/09/00
6,060,214 07/917,649 05/09/00
6,060,215 09/049,056 05/09/00
6,060,221 08/800,609 05/09/00
6,060,223 09/205,546 05/09/00
6,060,227 09/122,125 05/09/00
6,060,229 09/172,901 05/09/00
6,060,230 09/215,725 05/09/00
6,060,233 09/060,770 05/09/00
6,060,236 09/222,227 05/09/00
6,060,240 08/764,191 05/09/00
6,060,244 08/929,208 05/09/00
6,060,247 08/995,050 05/09/00
6,060,255 09/164,461 05/09/00
6,060,261 09/297,335 05/09/00
6,060,269 08/981,603 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 17 |
6,060,271 08/605,284 05/09/00
6,060,290 09/118,275 05/09/00
6,060,296 08/185,359 05/09/00
6,060,297 08/842,976 05/09/00
6,060,299 09/095,163 05/09/00
6,060,307 09/332,740 05/09/00
6,060,312 07/716,115 05/09/00
6,060,327 08/856,822 05/09/00
6,060,341 09/005,538 05/09/00
6,060,358 08/955,209 05/09/00
6,060,361 09/206,187 05/09/00
6,060,408 09/030,416 05/09/00
6,060,409 09/283,288 05/09/00
6,060,410 09/064,243 05/09/00
6,060,411 08/947,248 05/09/00
6,060,419 09/135,409 05/09/00
6,060,423 09/296,658 05/09/00
6,060,432 08/736,636 05/09/00
6,060,448 09/066,408 05/09/00
6,060,451 08/406,142 05/09/00
6,060,452 09/055,051 05/09/00
6,060,456 08/960,111 05/09/00
6,060,457 08/967,315 05/09/00
6,060,462 08/904,881 05/09/00
6,060,464 08/973,669 05/09/00
6,060,472 09/055,209 05/09/00
6,060,479 09/079,419 05/09/00
6,060,483 09/147,448 05/09/00
6,060,488 09/158,293 05/09/00
6,060,500 08/737,175 05/09/00
6,060,501 08/937,081 05/09/00
6,060,507 08/919,726 05/09/00
6,060,509 09/224,709 05/09/00
6,060,512 09/185,608 05/09/00
6,060,520 09/226,147 05/09/00
6,060,542 09/104,934 05/09/00
6,060,544 09/040,989 05/09/00
6,060,545 09/159,349 05/09/00
6,060,548 09/194,076 05/09/00
6,060,554 09/010,806 05/09/00
6,060,558 09/312,333 05/09/00
6,060,565 08/948,069 05/09/00
6,060,568 09/377,233 05/09/00
6,060,593 09/028,148 05/09/00
6,060,597 09/127,126 05/09/00
6,060,599 09/098,513 05/09/00
6,060,600 08/913,463 05/09/00
6,060,605 09/180,223 05/09/00
6,060,617 08/670,348 05/09/00
6,060,618 09/356,027 05/09/00
6,060,623 09/287,525 05/09/00
6,060,632 09/214,845 05/09/00
6,060,633 08/546,331 05/09/00
6,060,642 09/132,388 05/09/00
6,060,651 09/158,779 05/09/00
6,060,657 09/104,271 05/09/00
6,060,663 09/151,047 05/09/00
6,060,675 09/296,182 05/09/00
6,060,677 08/776,689 05/09/00
6,060,681 09/022,445 05/09/00
6,060,684 09/387,017 05/09/00
6,060,687 09/142,953 05/09/00
6,060,693 09/210,196 05/09/00
6,060,698 09/243,065 05/09/00
6,060,700 08/659,036 05/09/00
6,060,720 09/160,508 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 18 |
6,060,723 09/095,058 05/09/00
6,060,726 09/296,491 05/09/00
6,060,728 09/094,731 05/09/00
6,060,734 09/094,925 05/09/00
6,060,745 09/003,359 05/09/00
6,060,746 08/798,663 05/09/00
6,060,759 09/036,187 05/09/00
6,060,768 08/935,892 05/09/00
6,060,781 09/347,003 05/09/00
6,060,784 08/768,577 05/09/00
6,060,788 09/190,522 05/09/00
6,060,789 09/117,660 05/09/00
6,060,790 09/028,634 05/09/00
6,060,793 09/138,575 05/09/00
6,060,798 09/261,675 05/09/00
6,060,805 08/897,678 05/09/00
6,060,808 09/150,536 05/09/00
6,060,809 09/170,809 05/09/00
6,060,811 08/910,463 05/09/00
6,060,823 09/046,700 05/09/00
6,060,825 09/061,799 05/09/00
6,060,829 09/025,368 05/09/00
6,060,836 09/023,719 05/09/00
6,060,839 08/513,169 05/09/00
6,060,841 09/093,089 05/09/00
6,060,844 09/094,238 05/09/00
6,060,846 08/914,054 05/09/00
6,060,853 09/146,876 05/09/00
6,060,856 09/157,428 05/09/00
6,060,859 09/163,186 05/09/00
6,060,861 09/346,291 05/09/00
6,060,865 09/326,747 05/09/00
6,060,899 09/044,100 05/09/00
6,060,907 08/881,939 05/09/00
6,060,909 09/063,534 05/09/00
6,060,939 09/176,140 05/09/00
6,060,951 09/167,966 05/09/00
6,060,956 09/100,488 05/09/00
6,060,961 09/148,665 05/09/00
6,060,967 09/153,068 05/09/00
6,060,979 08/835,505 05/09/00
6,060,993 09/185,061 05/09/00
6,060,994 09/233,941 05/09/00
6,061,009 09/050,604 05/09/00
6,061,011 09/297,616 05/09/00
6,061,015 09/225,569 05/09/00
6,061,016 09/188,325 05/09/00
6,061,020 08/995,044 05/09/00
6,061,029 09/235,404 05/09/00
6,061,031 08/837,358 05/09/00
6,061,034 08/968,181 05/09/00
6,061,035 09/053,860 05/09/00
6,061,039 08/078,864 05/09/00
6,061,048 08/917,840 05/09/00
6,061,052 08/990,623 05/09/00
6,061,054 08/792,237 05/09/00
6,061,060 08/176,335 05/09/00
6,061,083 08/845,174 05/09/00
6,061,098 09/038,601 05/09/00
6,061,101 08/864,673 05/09/00
6,061,106 09/064,064 05/09/00
6,061,115 09/185,234 05/09/00
6,061,148 08/842,879 05/09/00
6,061,167 09/297,888 05/09/00
6,061,170 09/039,420 05/09/00
6,061,172 09/162,144 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 19 |
6,061,178 09/178,478 05/09/00
6,061,179 08/786,855 05/09/00
6,061,181 09/184,936 05/09/00
6,061,182 08/990,082 05/09/00
6,061,186 09/008,506 05/09/00
6,061,204 09/351,801 05/09/00
6,061,215 09/124,047 05/09/00
6,061,217 08/991,731 05/09/00
6,061,225 09/304,490 05/09/00
6,061,226 09/030,968 05/09/00
6,061,240 09/153,607 05/09/00
6,061,243 09/331,922 05/09/00
6,061,245 09/010,667 05/09/00
6,061,272 09/272,423 05/09/00
6,061,276 09/013,549 05/09/00
6,061,288 09/210,819 05/09/00
6,061,294 08/813,210 05/09/00
6,061,297 09/123,528 05/09/00
6,061,302 09/121,135 05/09/00
6,061,314 08/956,779 05/09/00
6,061,316 08/939,231 05/09/00
6,061,321 09/048,364 05/09/00
6,061,327 08/941,624 05/09/00
6,061,340 08/793,326 05/09/00
6,061,342 08/822,374 05/09/00
6,061,352 08/759,879 05/09/00
6,061,365 08/559,099 05/09/00
6,061,369 09/323,723 05/09/00
6,061,377 08/984,946 05/09/00
6,061,386 08/820,786 05/09/00
6,061,389 08/203,373 05/09/00
6,061,397 08/423,953 05/09/00
6,061,400 08/974,907 05/09/00
6,061,403 09/353,558 05/09/00
6,061,414 09/120,071 05/09/00
6,061,422 09/069,773 05/09/00
6,061,426 09/166,432 05/09/00
6,061,434 08/696,554 05/09/00
6,061,435 08/943,535 05/09/00
6,061,438 08/262,614 05/09/00
6,061,447 09/007,806 05/09/00
6,061,454 08/884,134 05/09/00
6,061,455 08/879,479 05/09/00
6,061,457 09/255,541 05/09/00
6,061,473 08/844,528 05/09/00
6,061,489 08/546,510 05/09/00
6,061,494 08/813,996 05/09/00
6,061,497 08/174,423 05/09/00
6,061,500 09/113,362 05/09/00
6,061,505 08/279,196 05/09/00
6,061,508 08/888,060 05/09/00
6,061,515 08/866,374 05/09/00
6,061,516 08/911,441 05/09/00
6,061,518 08/978,514 05/09/00
6,061,525 08/992,579 05/09/00
6,061,526 09/246,854 05/09/00
6,061,531 08/920,453 05/09/00
6,061,533 09/193,714 05/09/00
6,061,569 08/976,647 05/09/00
6,061,578 09/034,417 05/09/00
6,061,579 08/881,516 05/09/00
6,061,584 09/181,739 05/09/00
6,061,586 08/974,842 05/09/00
6,061,591 08/824,649 05/09/00
6,061,601 08/986,018 05/09/00
6,061,604 08/852,102 05/09/00
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 20 |
6,061,607 09/019,274 05/09/00
6,061,608 08/927,129 05/09/00
6,061,619 08/697,232 05/09/00
6,061,636 08/812,417 05/09/00
6,061,650 08/714,407 05/09/00
6,061,652 08/596,305 05/09/00
6,061,656 08/971,330 05/09/00
6,061,668 08/967,671 05/09/00
6,061,669 08/978,918 05/09/00
6,061,689 08/852,051 05/09/00
6,061,700 08/907,606 05/09/00
6,061,707 09/008,462 05/09/00
6,061,710 08/960,744 05/09/00
6,061,714 08/852,257 05/09/00
6,061,720 09/181,015 05/09/00
6,061,732 09/070,215 05/09/00
6,061,733 08/951,938 05/09/00
6,061,739 08/979,141 05/09/00
6,061,741 08/879,376 05/09/00
6,061,755 08/839,441 05/09/00
6,061,757 08/969,645 05/09/00
6,061,762 08/839,442 05/09/00
6,061,777 08/959,646 05/09/00
6,061,783 08/748,603 05/09/00
6,061,785 09/024,804 05/09/00
6,061,807 08/884,300 05/09/00
6,061,813 09/125,312 05/09/00
6,061,823 08/953,622 05/09/00
6,061,826 08/902,049 05/09/00
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON May 11, 2008
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,732,375 10/203,065 05/11/04
6,732,379 10/098,554 05/11/04
6,732,386 10/059,881 05/11/04
6,732,387 10/455,547 05/11/04
6,732,392 10/045,705 05/11/04
6,732,394 10/077,109 05/11/04
6,732,395 10/022,353 05/11/04
6,732,398 10/027,697 05/11/04
6,732,401 10/204,371 05/11/04
6,732,402 10/442,053 05/11/04
6,732,404 09/730,706 05/11/04
6,732,405 10/071,111 05/11/04
6,732,406 10/028,404 05/11/04
6,732,407 10/132,448 05/11/04
6,732,410 09/332,407 05/11/04
6,732,419 10/285,588 05/11/04
6,732,425 10/010,152 05/11/04
6,732,426 10/116,493 05/11/04
6,732,428 10/192,698 05/11/04
6,732,443 10/314,718 05/11/04
6,732,444 10/215,526 05/11/04
6,732,447 09/992,504 05/11/04
6,732,452 10/027,910 05/11/04
6,732,458 10/254,681 05/11/04
6,732,465 09/982,500 05/11/04
6,732,471 10/221,611 05/11/04
6,732,480 10/463,127 05/11/04
6,732,498 09/893,646 05/11/04
6,732,500 10/407,759 05/11/04
6,732,528 10/114,053 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 21 |
6,732,533 10/226,325 05/11/04
6,732,547 09/700,020 05/11/04
6,732,551 09/848,903 05/11/04
6,732,563 10/388,432 05/11/04
6,732,573 10/127,091 05/11/04
6,732,579 10/267,099 05/11/04
6,732,580 10/154,959 05/11/04
6,732,589 09/905,583 05/11/04
6,732,602 10/236,696 05/11/04
6,732,612 09/748,242 05/11/04
6,732,617 10/152,608 05/11/04
6,732,639 10/308,271 05/11/04
6,732,644 09/898,258 05/11/04
6,732,646 10/181,946 05/11/04
6,732,650 10/257,971 05/11/04
6,732,651 10/104,244 05/11/04
6,732,652 10/277,128 05/11/04
6,732,658 10/619,018 05/11/04
6,732,664 09/925,283 05/11/04
6,732,666 10/397,491 05/11/04
6,732,669 10/083,045 05/11/04
6,732,671 10/047,929 05/11/04
6,732,675 10/423,273 05/11/04
6,732,676 10/411,995 05/11/04
6,732,681 10/368,726 05/11/04
6,732,695 10/061,453 05/11/04
6,732,726 10/229,917 05/11/04
6,732,730 10/377,460 05/11/04
6,732,736 10/020,505 05/11/04
6,732,742 10/196,279 05/11/04
6,732,745 10/056,202 05/11/04
6,732,749 10/014,121 05/11/04
6,732,754 10/060,507 05/11/04
6,732,755 10/403,554 05/11/04
6,732,758 10/003,598 05/11/04
6,732,774 09/240,197 05/11/04
6,732,779 09/946,181 05/11/04
6,732,784 09/947,692 05/11/04
6,732,786 10/283,843 05/11/04
6,732,788 10/214,530 05/11/04
6,732,790 10/010,096 05/11/04
6,732,793 09/980,669 05/11/04
6,732,797 10/188,180 05/11/04
6,732,811 09/661,518 05/11/04
6,732,819 10/309,381 05/11/04
6,732,835 10/326,932 05/11/04
6,732,840 10/157,191 05/11/04
6,732,850 09/652,375 05/11/04
6,732,862 10/300,771 05/11/04
6,732,865 10/028,715 05/11/04
6,732,867 10/271,221 05/11/04
6,732,868 10/098,291 05/11/04
6,732,869 10/252,766 05/11/04
6,732,872 10/242,884 05/11/04
6,732,880 10/255,683 05/11/04
6,732,885 10/229,672 05/11/04
6,732,886 10/057,106 05/11/04
6,732,892 10/192,574 05/11/04
6,732,894 10/137,998 05/11/04
6,732,895 10/365,337 05/11/04
6,732,909 10/170,081 05/11/04
6,732,924 09/793,987 05/11/04
6,732,949 09/889,972 05/11/04
6,732,951 10/134,067 05/11/04
6,732,958 10/162,294 05/11/04
6,732,962 09/869,180 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 22 |
6,732,965 10/068,223 05/11/04
6,732,970 09/834,042 05/11/04
6,732,971 09/887,898 05/11/04
6,732,974 09/425,097 05/11/04
6,732,983 10/374,029 05/11/04
6,732,986 10/069,451 05/11/04
6,732,989 10/390,201 05/11/04
6,732,990 09/876,313 05/11/04
6,732,992 09/935,549 05/11/04
6,732,997 09/827,736 05/11/04
6,733,013 10/320,849 05/11/04
6,733,024 10/282,315 05/11/04
6,733,025 10/103,769 05/11/04
6,733,026 10/455,708 05/11/04
6,733,030 09/997,262 05/11/04
6,733,031 09/997,274 05/11/04
6,733,044 10/147,890 05/11/04
6,733,055 10/369,173 05/11/04
6,733,061 10/308,830 05/11/04
6,733,070 10/060,783 05/11/04
6,733,074 10/184,252 05/11/04
6,733,078 10/318,918 05/11/04
6,733,081 09/715,624 05/11/04
6,733,094 10/292,704 05/11/04
6,733,096 10/315,776 05/11/04
6,733,121 10/127,336 05/11/04
6,733,124 10/102,475 05/11/04
6,733,151 10/227,826 05/11/04
6,733,153 10/224,036 05/11/04
6,733,154 10/160,225 05/11/04
6,733,156 09/987,770 05/11/04
6,733,160 10/163,231 05/11/04
6,733,163 10/232,940 05/11/04
6,733,165 10/022,866 05/11/04
6,733,170 10/303,018 05/11/04
6,733,182 09/983,914 05/11/04
6,733,198 09/695,444 05/11/04
6,733,204 10/213,143 05/11/04
6,733,208 10/285,376 05/11/04
6,733,210 10/226,145 05/11/04
6,733,218 09/962,957 05/11/04
6,733,226 10/360,219 05/11/04
6,733,230 10/384,566 05/11/04
6,733,240 09/907,980 05/11/04
6,733,242 10/301,574 05/11/04
6,733,246 10/367,561 05/11/04
6,733,248 10/244,712 05/11/04
6,733,253 10/187,835 05/11/04
6,733,264 09/837,332 05/11/04
6,733,269 10/119,356 05/11/04
6,733,270 09/862,675 05/11/04
6,733,276 10/377,675 05/11/04
6,733,292 10/122,988 05/11/04
6,733,293 10/057,483 05/11/04
6,733,297 10/351,164 05/11/04
6,733,316 10/428,773 05/11/04
6,733,323 10/120,633 05/11/04
6,733,329 10/223,989 05/11/04
6,733,347 10/235,448 05/11/04
6,733,348 10/195,060 05/11/04
6,733,356 10/181,985 05/11/04
6,733,364 10/148,575 05/11/04
6,733,376 10/223,066 05/11/04
6,733,379 10/064,405 05/11/04
6,733,381 10/604,412 05/11/04
6,733,397 10/369,875 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 23 |
6,733,408 10/115,784 05/11/04
6,733,412 10/122,207 05/11/04
6,733,420 09/880,463 05/11/04
6,733,423 10/372,164 05/11/04
6,733,425 10/061,486 05/11/04
6,733,427 10/393,009 05/11/04
6,733,464 10/226,597 05/11/04
6,733,465 09/649,773 05/11/04
6,733,470 09/690,939 05/11/04
6,733,475 10/141,137 05/11/04
6,733,482 09/958,393 05/11/04
6,733,518 10/274,757 05/11/04
6,733,528 10/212,151 05/11/04
6,733,539 09/820,016 05/11/04
6,733,547 10/012,848 05/11/04
6,733,549 10/181,438 05/11/04
6,733,556 10/148,021 05/11/04
6,733,560 09/869,525 05/11/04
6,733,572 10/210,566 05/11/04
6,733,578 10/177,831 05/11/04
6,733,595 10/234,942 05/11/04
6,733,619 10/193,911 05/11/04
6,733,627 09/880,594 05/11/04
6,733,629 10/049,681 05/11/04
6,733,635 09/469,819 05/11/04
6,733,641 08/881,948 05/11/04
6,733,648 10/084,505 05/11/04
6,733,663 10/211,863 05/11/04
6,733,669 10/348,563 05/11/04
6,733,670 09/782,162 05/11/04
6,733,678 10/086,950 05/11/04
6,733,692 09/838,070 05/11/04
6,733,695 10/176,377 05/11/04
6,733,697 10/200,036 05/11/04
6,733,701 09/682,565 05/11/04
6,733,702 09/838,623 05/11/04
6,733,707 09/714,424 05/11/04
6,733,718 10/012,406 05/11/04
6,733,724 09/631,491 05/11/04
6,733,727 09/719,890 05/11/04
6,733,738 09/979,921 05/11/04
6,733,740 09/689,093 05/11/04
6,733,750 09/265,532 05/11/04
6,733,791 10/192,684 05/11/04
6,733,796 10/278,315 05/11/04
6,733,809 09/935,147 05/11/04
6,733,825 10/385,270 05/11/04
6,733,831 10/021,176 05/11/04
6,733,836 10/225,777 05/11/04
6,733,850 09/869,090 05/11/04
6,733,855 09/720,691 05/11/04
6,733,857 09/856,452 05/11/04
6,733,885 10/081,403 05/11/04
6,733,888 10/262,750 05/11/04
6,733,906 09/917,442 05/11/04
6,733,932 10/197,814 05/11/04
6,733,954 10/396,419 05/11/04
6,733,963 10/010,227 05/11/04
6,733,998 09/724,797 05/11/04
6,734,005 09/862,631 05/11/04
6,734,008 09/970,663 05/11/04
6,734,016 09/718,388 05/11/04
6,734,019 09/529,239 05/11/04
6,734,025 09/928,639 05/11/04
6,734,042 10/207,815 05/11/04
6,734,056 10/341,831 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 24 |
6,734,067 10/166,683 05/11/04
6,734,083 10/175,677 05/11/04
6,734,090 10/078,861 05/11/04
6,734,103 10/081,212 05/11/04
6,734,111 09/924,448 05/11/04
6,734,127 09/973,524 05/11/04
6,734,133 09/980,603 05/11/04
6,734,139 10/148,771 05/11/04
6,734,143 10/363,024 05/11/04
6,734,147 08/943,123 05/11/04
6,734,149 10/166,413 05/11/04
6,734,166 09/499,980 05/11/04
6,734,167 09/747,772 05/11/04
6,734,175 10/205,304 05/11/04
6,734,180 09/532,935 05/11/04
6,734,186 09/708,392 05/11/04
6,734,205 10/168,112 05/11/04
6,734,207 10/125,746 05/11/04
6,734,214 10/030,170 05/11/04
6,734,216 09/916,835 05/11/04
6,734,217 10/129,766 05/11/04
6,734,221 10/088,064 05/11/04
6,734,222 10/056,116 05/11/04
6,734,233 10/168,622 05/11/04
6,734,244 10/241,934 05/11/04
6,734,253 10/199,531 05/11/04
6,734,275 10/272,939 05/11/04
6,734,280 10/014,710 05/11/04
6,734,292 10/088,965 05/11/04
6,734,300 10/279,560 05/11/04
6,734,301 09/803,242 05/11/04
6,734,303 10/144,337 05/11/04
6,734,306 10/010,863 05/11/04
6,734,311 09/862,151 05/11/04
6,734,316 10/182,218 05/11/04
6,734,317 10/447,468 05/11/04
6,734,319 10/224,874 05/11/04
6,734,326 10/129,078 05/11/04
6,734,349 10/392,807 05/11/04
6,734,353 10/149,979 05/11/04
6,734,363 09/205,782 05/11/04
6,734,375 09/956,205 05/11/04
6,734,379 10/236,252 05/11/04
6,734,384 10/216,264 05/11/04
6,734,385 10/009,933 05/11/04
6,734,407 10/043,353 05/11/04
6,734,409 10/284,941 05/11/04
6,734,423 10/030,396 05/11/04
6,734,424 10/146,134 05/11/04
6,734,432 10/084,951 05/11/04
6,734,442 09/645,983 05/11/04
6,734,449 09/990,047 05/11/04
6,734,450 10/084,930 05/11/04
6,734,465 10/299,410 05/11/04
6,734,486 09/222,429 05/11/04
6,734,488 09/499,037 05/11/04
6,734,499 09/406,791 05/11/04
6,734,523 09/395,184 05/11/04
6,734,546 10/082,174 05/11/04
6,734,582 09/829,888 05/11/04
6,734,594 10/032,117 05/11/04
6,734,610 09/817,242 05/11/04
6,734,614 09/451,269 05/11/04
6,734,626 09/910,792 05/11/04
6,734,650 10/060,184 05/11/04
6,734,654 10/029,524 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 25 |
6,734,677 10/269,948 05/11/04
6,734,679 09/585,405 05/11/04
6,734,680 10/124,865 05/11/04
6,734,685 09/799,530 05/11/04
6,734,692 09/926,357 05/11/04
6,734,694 10/092,163 05/11/04
6,734,708 09/624,438 05/11/04
6,734,762 09/828,431 05/11/04
6,734,770 10/211,058 05/11/04
6,734,773 10/125,727 05/11/04
6,734,774 09/984,398 05/11/04
6,734,776 10/063,024 05/11/04
6,734,785 10/001,374 05/11/04
6,734,786 09/918,207 05/11/04
6,734,787 10/126,620 05/11/04
6,734,790 10/138,151 05/11/04
6,734,799 09/796,957 05/11/04
6,734,802 10/131,795 05/11/04
6,734,825 10/281,226 05/11/04
6,734,830 10/260,131 05/11/04
6,734,831 10/169,572 05/11/04
6,734,832 10/319,016 05/11/04
6,734,833 09/702,977 05/11/04
6,734,837 09/334,336 05/11/04
6,734,868 10/028,380 05/11/04
6,734,883 09/579,257 05/11/04
6,734,903 08/391,388 05/11/04
6,734,911 09/408,787 05/11/04
6,734,915 10/096,105 05/11/04
6,734,930 10/164,699 05/11/04
6,734,942 10/095,553 05/11/04
6,734,954 09/824,798 05/11/04
6,734,955 10/058,948 05/11/04
6,734,963 10/051,305 05/11/04
6,734,970 10/224,391 05/11/04
6,734,980 09/857,534 05/11/04
6,734,993 09/495,802 05/11/04
6,735,003 09/182,404 05/11/04
6,735,004 10/099,246 05/11/04
6,735,005 10/156,143 05/11/04
6,735,008 09/919,325 05/11/04
6,735,013 10/008,926 05/11/04
6,735,015 09/592,898 05/11/04
6,735,019 10/403,041 05/11/04
6,735,021 09/886,018 05/11/04
6,735,022 10/143,715 05/11/04
6,735,024 10/263,166 05/11/04
6,735,039 10/112,984 05/11/04
6,735,044 09/954,169 05/11/04
6,735,046 09/990,259 05/11/04
6,735,048 10/204,777 05/11/04
6,735,049 10/112,004 05/11/04
6,735,060 09/886,832 05/11/04
6,735,064 10/278,447 05/11/04
6,735,069 10/076,599 05/11/04
6,735,078 10/309,371 05/11/04
6,735,081 10/445,753 05/11/04
6,735,082 10/219,036 05/11/04
6,735,101 10/390,594 05/11/04
6,735,119 10/338,635 05/11/04
6,735,133 10/459,624 05/11/04
6,735,142 10/263,372 05/11/04
6,735,152 10/235,729 05/11/04
6,735,165 09/332,240 05/11/04
6,735,171 09/261,338 05/11/04
6,735,172 09/469,139 05/11/04
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 26 |
6,735,176 09/177,602 05/11/04
6,735,177 09/440,956 05/11/04
6,735,179 10/076,077 05/11/04
6,735,225 10/165,766 05/11/04
6,735,229 10/443,495 05/11/04
6,735,232 09/774,238 05/11/04
6,735,233 10/170,972 05/11/04
6,735,235 10/143,233 05/11/04
6,735,244 09/593,469 05/11/04
6,735,275 10/140,066 05/11/04
6,735,295 09/604,659 05/11/04
6,735,298 10/234,691 05/11/04
6,735,320 08/621,215 05/11/04
6,735,322 09/659,454 05/11/04
6,735,342 09/821,131 05/11/04
6,735,347 09/634,454 05/11/04
6,735,365 10/124,624 05/11/04
6,735,369 10/139,424 05/11/04
6,735,377 09/514,689 05/11/04
6,735,381 10/264,743 05/11/04
6,735,385 10/255,588 05/11/04
6,735,388 10/269,322 05/11/04
6,735,389 10/620,449 05/11/04
6,735,484 09/666,899 05/11/04
6,735,504 10/387,618 05/11/04
6,735,509 10/206,040 05/11/04
6,735,526 09/786,905 05/11/04
6,735,553 10/031,751 05/11/04
6,735,556 09/883,065 05/11/04
6,735,560 09/773,137 05/11/04
6,735,584 09/316,436 05/11/04
6,735,596 09/875,119 05/11/04
6,735,599 09/806,590 05/11/04
6,735,605 09/796,843 05/11/04
6,735,612 09/699,976 05/11/04
6,735,614 09/588,515 05/11/04
6,735,620 09/619,054 05/11/04
6,735,639 10/138,297 05/11/04
6,735,644 09/813,677 05/11/04
6,735,651 09/364,738 05/11/04
6,735,698 09/342,559 05/11/04
6,735,717 09/548,525 05/11/04
6,735,734 09/561,222 05/11/04
6,735,760 09/708,576 05/11/04
6,735,762 09/834,890 05/11/04
6,735,769 09/615,768 05/11/04
6,735,772 09/548,594 05/11/04
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 06/02/2008 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 06/02/2008
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,227,898 07/801,791 12/02/91 07/13/93 06/02/08
5,250,100 07/306,094 02/06/89 10/05/93 06/04/08
5,424,045 08/153,348 11/16/93 06/13/95 06/03/08
5,428,587 08/252,146 06/01/94 06/27/95 06/03/08
5,470,320 07/866,760 04/10/92 11/28/95 06/05/08
5,490,211 08/230,191 04/20/94 02/06/96 06/06/08
5,653,494 08/268,306 06/29/94 08/05/97 06/04/08
5,755,836 08/783,606 01/14/97 05/26/98 06/03/08
5,791,542 08/825,263 03/27/97 08/11/98 06/05/08
5,825,843 08/638,850 04/29/96 10/20/98 06/02/08
5,845,984 08/692,701 08/06/96 12/08/98 06/05/08
5,859,937 08/832,941 04/04/97 01/12/99 06/03/08
5,861,117 08/587,893 01/16/96 01/19/99 06/04/08
5,868,101 08/757,798 11/27/96 02/09/99 06/04/08
5,870,888 08/854,848 05/12/97 02/16/99 06/03/08
5,875,842 08/611,992 03/05/96 03/02/99 06/04/08
5,889,409 08/721,685 09/27/96 03/30/99 06/04/08
5,916,286 08/528,933 09/15/95 06/29/99 06/05/08
5,921,670 08/820,641 03/14/97 07/13/99 06/03/08
5,929,318 08/850,640 05/02/97 07/27/99 06/03/08
5,932,303 08/853,904 05/09/97 08/03/99 06/03/08
5,937,462 08/876,494 06/16/97 08/17/99 06/04/08
5,958,744 09/134,061 08/13/98 09/28/99 06/04/08
5,997,518 09/006,720 01/14/98 12/07/99 06/05/08
6,051,013 09/083,911 05/22/98 04/18/00 06/05/08
6,343,998 09/412,527 10/05/99 02/05/02 06/06/08
6,345,398 09/780,331 02/09/01 02/12/02 06/06/08
6,408,893 09/939,336 08/24/01 06/25/02 06/03/08
6,450,587 09/724,761 11/28/00 09/17/02 06/03/08
6,471,971 09/695,938 10/25/00 10/29/02 06/03/08
6,509,853 09/950,993 09/13/01 01/21/03 06/04/08
6,557,461 10/190,259 07/08/02 05/06/03 06/03/08
6,557,513 09/967,332 09/28/01 05/06/03 06/03/08
6,586,906 10/066,034 01/31/02 07/01/03 06/04/08
6,588,410 10/047,595 01/14/02 07/08/03 06/04/08
6,592,172 10/152,595 05/21/02 07/15/03 06/04/08
6,593,465 09/767,794 01/23/01 07/15/03 06/04/08
6,611,959 10/151,131 05/18/02 09/02/03 06/04/08
6,626,887 09/588,425 06/06/00 09/30/03 06/06/08
6,631,157 09/526,867 03/16/00 10/07/03 06/04/08
6,631,912 09/922,009 08/03/01 10/14/03 06/06/08
6,636,593 09/715,301 11/17/00 10/21/03 06/05/08
6,641,490 10/081,030 02/11/02 11/04/03 06/04/08
6,652,283 09/475,496 12/30/99 11/25/03 06/06/08
6,658,576 09/409,017 09/29/99 12/02/03 06/04/08
6,665,991 10/449,619 06/02/03 12/23/03 06/05/08
6,703,910 09/896,389 06/29/01 03/09/04 06/03/08
6,705,805 10/082,117 02/26/02 03/16/04 06/04/08
6,718,386 09/618,311 07/18/00 04/06/04 06/06/08
6,721,744 09/658,346 09/07/00 04/13/04 06/06/08
6,726,577 10/347,720 01/21/03 04/27/04 06/04/08
6,728,678 10/041,867 01/07/02 04/27/04 06/05/08
Reissue Applications Filed |
Reissue Applications Filed
Notice under 37 CFR 1.11(b). The reissue applications listed below
are open to public inspection by the general public through the Image
File Wrapper (IFW) system (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair)
on the USPTO internet web site (www.uspto.gov), and copies may be
obtained by paying the fee therefor (37 CFR 1.19).
6,263,879, Re. S.N. 12/013,950, Jan. 14, 2008, Cl. 606/107,
TREATMENT OF PRESBYOPIA AND OTHER EYE DISORDERS USING A SCANNING LASER
SYSTEM, Jui-Teng Lin, Owner of Record: SURGILIGHT, INC., Attorney or Agent:
Josue A. Villalta, Ex. Gp.: 3731
6,524,334, Re. S.N.: 12/011,625, Jan. 28, 2008, CL: 623/001.130,
EXPANDABLE STENT-GRAFT COVERED WITH EXPANDED POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE,
Paul J. Thompson, Owner of Record: Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.,
Attorney or Agent: Daniel A. Scola, Ex. Gp.: 3738
6,977,234, Re. S.N.: 12/006,678, Jan. 30, 2008, CL: 429/030.000,
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING FUEL CELL ELECTROLYTE FILM-ELECTRODE BOND,
Shinya Kosako, et al., Owner of Record: Matsushita Electric Industrial,
Co., Ltd., Attorney or Agent: Michael E. Fogarty, Ex. Gp.: 1795
7,013,667, Re. S.N. 12/047,725, Mar. 13, 2008, Cl. 062/000,
DISPENSER FOR REFRIGERATOR, Jae Wook Jung, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS
INC., Attorney or Agent: Jeremy J. Monaldo, Ex. Gp.: 3731
7,140,993, Re. S.N. 12/114,207, May 05, 2008, Cl. 475/000,
FLY-BY-WIRE LIMP HOME AND MULTI-PLEX SYSTEM, Charles F. Long et. al.,
Owner of Record: GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Detroit, MI, Attorney or Agent:
Christopher W. Quinn, Ex. Gp.: 3681
7,244,102, Re. S.N. 12/148,774, Apr. 21, 2008, Cl. 416/156,
REINFORCED HUB FOR THE ROTOR OF A WIND ENERGY TURBINE, Nicolas Delucis et.
al., Owner of Record: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Attorney or Agent:
Michael J. Mallie, Ex. Gp.: 3745
7,307,031, Re. S.N.: 12/023,308, Jan. 31, 2008, CL: 435/006.000,
BREATHABLE COMPOSITE SHEET STRUCTURE AND ABSORBENT ARTICLES UTILIZING SAME,
Nora Liu Carroll, Owner of Record: The Proctor & Gamble Company,
Attorney or Agent: John P. Colbert, Ex. Gp.: 1645
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
5,393,368, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,125, Requested Date: Apr. 24, 2008,
Cl. 156/577, Title: CORRECTION TAPE DISPENSER, Inventor: Christopher J.
Stevens, Owners of Record: Berol Corporation, Freeport, IL, Attorney or
Agent: The Gillette Company, Boston, MA, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester:
John P. Kong, Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian, LLP, Washington, DC
5,660,836, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,160, Requested Date: May 09, 2008,
Cl. 424/400, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLED CONTRACTION OF
COLLAGEN TISSUE, Inventor: Edward W. Knowlton, Owners of Record: Thermage,
Inc., Hayward, CA, Attorney or Agent: Wood Herron & Evans, LLP, Cincinnati,
OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Alma Lasers, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL,
Hugh A. Abrams, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL
5,755,753, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,162, Requested Date: May 09, 2008,
Cl. 607/098, Title: METHOD FOR CONTROLLED CONTRACTION OF COLLAGEN TISSUE,
Inventor: Edward W. Knowlton, Owners of Record: Thermage, Inc., Hayward,
CA, Attorney or Agent: Wood Herron & Evans, LLP, Cincinnati, OH,
Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Alma Lasers, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL, Hugh A.
Abrams, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL
5,990,405, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,128, Requested Date: Apr. 24, 2008,
Cl. 084/609, Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING AND CONTROLLING A
SIMULATED MUSICAL CONCERT EXPERIENCE, Inventor: Don R. Auten et al.,
Owners of Record: Gibson Guitar Corp, Nashville, TN, Attorney or Agent:
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, New York, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Brian M. Berliner, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
6,149,122, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,140, Requested Date: May 6, 2008,
Cl. 702/001, Title: METHOD FOR BUILDING INTERCONNECT STRUCTURES BY INJECTION
MOLDED SOLDER AND STRUCTURES BUILD, Inventor: Daniel George Berger et al.,
Owners of Record: IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, Attorney or Agent: Barnes
Kisselle Raisch Choate Whittemore and Hulbert, Detroit, MI, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: EuilHoon Lee, Lahive & Cockfield, LLP, Boston, MA
6,295,075, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,109, Requested Date: May 19, 2008,
Cl. 715/747, Title: CONFIGURABLE TERMINAL CAPABLE OF COMMUNICATING WITH
VARIOUS REMOTE COMPUTERS, Inventor: Gad Janay et al., Owners of Record:
Gad Janay, Caldwell, NJ, Todd Yampel, Brooklyn, NY, Attorney or Agent:
Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Juliana
Haydoutova, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC
6,387,380, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,161, Requested Date: May 09, 2008,
Cl. 434/400, Title: APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLED CONTRACTION OF COLLAGEN TISSUE
Inventor: Edward W. Knowlton, Owners of Record: Thermage, Inc., Hayward, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Wood Herron & Evans, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Alma Lasers, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL, Hugh A. Abrams, Sidley
Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL
6,484,203, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,126, Requested Date: Apr. 25, 2008,
Cl. 709/201, Title: HIERARCHICAL EVENT MONITORING AND ANALYSIS, Inventor:
Phillip Andrew Porras et al., Owners of Record: Sri International, Inc.,
Menlo Park, CA, Attorney or Agent: Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Shrewsbury,
NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Renee DuBord Brown, Day Casebeer Madrid &
Batcheider, LLP, Cupertino, CA
6,529,214, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,163, Requested Date: May 12, 2008,
Cl. 715/744, Title: INTERACTIVE PRINT JOB DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD,
Inventor: Micah Chase et al., Owners of Record: Checkmate Technologies,
LLC, West Boylston, MA, Attorney or Agent: Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Boston, MA,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Patent Owner
6,546,924, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,151, Requested Date: May 13, 2008,
Cl. 124/078, Title: BALL THROWING MACHINE AND METHOD FOR PROFILING
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 30 |
PITCHES, Inventor: Gregory J. Battersby et al., Owners of Record: Kent
Communications, LTD., Stamford, CT, Attorney or Agent: Grimes & Battersby,
LLP, Norwalk, CT, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Sports Tutor, Inc., John C.
McNett, Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry, LLP, Indianapolis, IN
6,711,615, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,127, Requested Date: Apr. 25, 2008,
Cl. 709/224, Title: NETWORK SURVEILLANCE, Inventor: Phillip Andrew Porras
et al., Owners of Record: Sri International, Inc., Menlo Park, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Moser Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Shrewsbury, NJ,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Renee DuBord Brown, Day Casebeer Madrid &
Batcheider, LLP, Cupertino, CA
6,873,823, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,159, Requested Date: May 07, 2008,
Cl. 455/011.1, Title: REPEATER WITH DIGITAL CHANNELIZER, Inventor:
Abraham Hasarchi et al., Owners of Record: Dekolink Wireless, LTD.,
Petah-Tikva, Israel, Attorney or Agent: Eitan Pearl Latzer & Cohen Zedek,
LLP, New York, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Matthew G. McKinney, Orlando,
FL
7,174,352, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,129, Requested Date: April 29, 2008,
Cl. 707/203, Title: FILE SYSTEM IMAGE TRANSFER, Inventor: Steven R. Kleiman
et al., Owners of Record: Network Appliance, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, Attorney
or Agent: Cesari amd McKenna, LLP, Boston, MA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Ronald L. Yin, DLA Piper US LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
7,317,460, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,157, Requested Date: May 06, 2008,
Cl. 345/087, Title: LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY FOR IMPROVING DYNAMIC CONTRAST
AND A METHOD FOR GENERATING GAMMA VOLTAGES FOR THE LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY,
Inventor: Jong-Seon Kim et al., Owners of Record: Samsung Electronics, Co.,
LTD., Suwon-City, Korea, Attorney or Agent: Cantor Colburn, LLP, Hartford,
CT, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Patent Owner
7,319,632, Reexam. C.N. 90/010,164, Requested Date: May 13, 2008,
Cl. 365/200, Title: PSEUDO-DUAL PORT MEMORY HAVING A CLOCK FOR EACH PORT,
Inventor: Chang Ho Jung, Owners of Record: Qualcomm Incorporated, San
Diego, CA, Attorney or Agent: Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, CA,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Patent Owner
7,326,094, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,130, Requested Date: Apr. 30, 2008,
Cl. 441/065, Title: SLIDER, Inventor: Tzong In Yeh, Owners of Record:
Tzong In Yeh, Fremont, CA, Attorney or Agent: Rosenberg Klein & Lee,
Ellicott City, MD, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Rightfair International LTD.,
Hong Kong, China, Clement Cheng, Newhope Law, PC, Fountain Valley, CA
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,306,943, Reexam. C.N. 95/000,367, Requested Date: May 9, 2008,
Cl. 524/270, Title: ZERO VOLITILE ORGANIC SOLVENT COMPOSITIONS, Inventor:
Richard G. Henry, Owners of Record: Polymer Solvents, LLC, Beachwood, OH,
Attorney or Agent: Pearne & Gordon, LLP, Cleveland, OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Third Party Requester: National Paint and Coatings Association,
RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc., The Euclid Chemical Company, Rust-Oleum
Corporation; (Att'y Is: Marc Delflache, Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, Houston,
TX), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,748,320, Reexam. C.N. 95/000,368, Requested Date: May 14, 2008,
Cl. 701/201, Title: ADVANCE NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS UTILIZING A
COMPUTER NETWORK, Inventor: M. Kelly Jones, Owners of Record: Melvino
Technologies, Inc., Tortola, Virgin Island, Attorney or Agent: Thomas
Kayden Horstemeyer & Risley, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: TransWorks, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN; (Att'y Is:
Thomas J. Scott, Jr., Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,904,359, Reexam. C.N. 95/000,369, Requested Date: May 14, 2008,
Cl. 701/204, Title: NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH USER-DEFINABLE
NOTIFICATIONS BASED UPON OCCURANCE OF EVENTS, Inventor: M. Kelly Jones,
Owners of Record: Melvino Technologies, Inc., Tortola, Virgin Islands,
Attorney or Agent: Thomas Kayden Horstemeyer & Risley, LLP, Atlanta, GA,
Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Third Party Requester: TransWorks, Inc., Fort
Wayne, IN; (Att'y Is: Thomas J. Scott, Jr, Goodwin Procter, LLP,
Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due to Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be
renewed for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period
upon payment of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable
application for renewal. This may be done at any time within one year
before the expiration of the period for which the registration was
issued or renewed, or it may be done within six months after such
expiration on payment of an additional fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
June 6, 2008
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
65,071 71/026,953 09/03/1907
65,052 71/028,029 09/03/1907
64,996 71/028,103 09/03/1907
65,005 71/028,114 09/03/1907
118,447 71/101,839 09/04/1917
231,876 71/241,267 08/30/1927
231,824 71/246,567 08/30/1927
231,805 71/247,988 08/30/1927
349,456 71/376,395 08/31/1937
349,479 71/384,255 08/31/1937
349,642 71/391,287 08/31/1937
349,654 71/391,411 08/31/1937
349,704 71/391,925 08/31/1937
349,722 71/392,257 08/31/1937
432,350 71/472,238 09/02/1947
432,381 71/495,301 09/02/1947
432,383 71/495,460 09/02/1947
432,396 71/499,877 09/02/1947
432,398 71/500,296 09/02/1947
432,400 71/500,512 09/02/1947
432,410 71/501,828 09/02/1947
432,420 71/503,247 09/02/1947
432,461 71/505,867 09/02/1947
432,470 71/506,105 09/02/1947
432,491 71/506,800 09/02/1947
651,035 72/000,257 09/03/1957
651,276 72/013,336 09/03/1957
651,069 72/016,762 09/03/1957
651,091 72/018,091 09/03/1957
651,279 72/019,154 09/03/1957
651,021 72/019,420 09/03/1957
651,198 72/019,762 09/03/1957
651,076 72/021,612 09/03/1957
651,258 72/025,503 09/03/1957
834,907 72/182,649 09/05/1967
830,616 72/194,472 06/20/1967
834,744 72/199,944 09/05/1967
834,688 72/208,174 09/05/1967
834,715 72/212,598 09/05/1967
834,870 72/213,950 09/05/1967
834,619 72/218,393 09/05/1967
834,739 72/224,774 09/05/1967
834,818 72/231,638 09/05/1967
834,653 72/233,780 09/05/1967
834,807 72/235,160 09/05/1967
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 33 |
834,808 72/235,162 09/05/1967
834,763 72/236,029 09/05/1967
834,764 72/236,348 09/05/1967
834,609 72/237,858 09/05/1967
834,766 72/240,559 09/05/1967
834,887 72/241,248 09/05/1967
834,663 72/242,292 09/05/1967
834,905 72/243,136 09/05/1967
834,530 72/243,320 09/05/1967
834,565 72/243,449 09/05/1967
834,850 72/244,835 09/05/1967
834,746 72/245,127 09/05/1967
834,630 72/246,500 09/05/1967
834,821 72/247,171 09/05/1967
834,748 72/247,189 09/05/1967
834,610 72/247,587 09/05/1967
834,670 72/247,644 09/05/1967
834,780 72/248,132 09/05/1967
834,894 72/248,353 09/05/1967
834,632 72/249,744 09/05/1967
834,633 72/250,052 09/05/1967
834,646 72/250,764 09/05/1967
834,855 72/251,399 09/05/1967
834,784 72/252,284 09/05/1967
834,682 72/252,583 09/05/1967
834,827 72/254,660 09/05/1967
834,789 72/254,753 09/05/1967
834,833 72/254,786 09/05/1967
834,880 72/256,584 09/05/1967
834,881 72/256,586 09/05/1967
834,596 72/256,684 09/05/1967
834,867 72/257,549 09/05/1967
834,793 72/258,547 09/05/1967
834,884 72/258,981 09/05/1967
834,560 72/261,100 09/05/1967
834,535 72/265,764 09/05/1967
834,857 72/265,949 09/05/1967
834,584 72/267,382 09/05/1967
834,540 72/267,790 09/05/1967
834,598 72/267,880 09/05/1967
992,752 72/446,726 09/03/1974
1,072,207 73/031,020 08/30/1977
1,072,118 73/031,862 08/30/1977
1,072,294 73/039,483 08/30/1977
1,072,127 73/067,562 08/30/1977
1,072,460 73/070,029 08/30/1977
1,072,461 73/070,030 08/30/1977
1,072,100 73/078,827 08/30/1977
1,072,216 73/079,569 08/30/1977
1,072,104 73/079,830 08/30/1977
1,072,168 73/086,189 08/30/1977
1,072,037 73/086,929 08/30/1977
1,072,417 73/088,388 08/30/1977
1,072,459 73/088,731 08/30/1977
1,072,356 73/090,798 08/30/1977
1,072,229 73/091,668 08/30/1977
1,072,423 73/093,214 08/30/1977
1,072,147 73/093,629 08/30/1977
1,072,148 73/093,684 08/30/1977
1,072,424 73/093,862 08/30/1977
1,072,039 73/093,980 08/30/1977
1,072,177 73/096,607 08/30/1977
1,072,191 73/097,083 08/30/1977
1,072,042 73/100,049 08/30/1977
1,072,192 73/101,565 08/30/1977
1,072,387 73/102,157 08/30/1977
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 34 |
1,072,046 73/102,378 08/30/1977
1,072,237 73/102,665 08/30/1977
1,072,111 73/102,811 08/30/1977
1,072,282 73/104,361 08/30/1977
1,072,049 73/105,300 08/30/1977
1,072,253 73/106,063 08/30/1977
1,072,196 73/106,932 08/30/1977
1,072,375 73/108,874 08/30/1977
1,072,435 73/110,831 08/30/1977
1,072,384 73/110,931 08/30/1977
1,072,092 73/113,253 08/30/1977
1,072,093 73/113,343 08/30/1977
1,072,081 73/113,809 08/30/1977
1,072,059 73/114,894 08/30/1977
1,072,320 73/116,775 08/30/1977
1,455,819 73/397,618 09/01/1987
1,455,201 73/419,487 09/01/1987
1,454,778 73/424,890 09/01/1987
1,455,822 73/513,520 09/01/1987
1,455,120 73/514,092 09/01/1987
1,454,914 73/516,069 09/01/1987
1,455,204 73/523,389 09/01/1987
1,455,641 73/535,541 09/01/1987
1,455,642 73/535,542 09/01/1987
1,455,759 73/538,239 09/01/1987
1,455,392 73/538,678 09/01/1987
1,454,916 73/542,174 09/01/1987
1,454,917 73/542,353 09/01/1987
1,455,206 73/543,973 09/01/1987
1,455,619 73/548,412 09/01/1987
1,454,780 73/552,049 09/01/1987
1,454,919 73/557,517 09/01/1987
1,454,922 73/560,700 09/01/1987
1,455,207 73/562,034 09/01/1987
1,455,469 73/563,522 09/01/1987
1,454,924 73/564,506 09/01/1987
1,455,704 73/566,015 09/01/1987
1,455,827 73/567,410 09/01/1987
1,455,363 73/567,740 09/01/1987
1,454,781 73/571,237 09/01/1987
1,454,931 73/572,341 09/01/1987
1,454,932 73/573,653 09/01/1987
1,455,320 73/574,045 09/01/1987
1,455,624 73/575,873 09/01/1987
1,455,593 73/575,874 09/01/1987
1,454,935 73/576,238 09/01/1987
1,455,397 73/577,347 09/01/1987
1,454,847 73/579,037 09/01/1987
1,454,936 73/579,077 09/01/1987
1,454,937 73/579,178 09/01/1987
1,455,329 73/580,065 09/01/1987
1,455,209 73/580,745 09/01/1987
1,455,705 73/580,877 09/01/1987
1,455,829 73/581,302 09/01/1987
1,454,849 73/581,379 09/01/1987
1,454,883 73/581,460 09/01/1987
1,455,830 73/581,688 09/01/1987
1,454,943 73/584,081 09/01/1987
1,455,594 73/584,547 09/01/1987
1,455,676 73/585,389 09/01/1987
1,454,809 73/585,572 09/01/1987
1,414,587 73/587,848 10/21/1986
1,455,677 73/588,915 09/01/1987
1,455,210 73/589,370 09/01/1987
1,454,810 73/590,025 09/01/1987
1,455,708 73/592,230 09/01/1987
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 35 |
1,455,400 73/593,324 09/01/1987
1,454,949 73/594,882 09/01/1987
1,455,148 73/595,031 09/01/1987
1,455,901 73/595,206 09/01/1987
1,455,213 73/595,231 09/01/1987
1,455,214 73/595,639 09/01/1987
1,455,837 73/596,880 09/01/1987
1,455,679 73/596,882 09/01/1987
1,455,790 73/597,422 09/01/1987
1,455,791 73/597,831 09/01/1987
1,455,792 73/598,208 09/01/1987
1,455,681 73/598,231 09/01/1987
1,455,477 73/598,490 09/01/1987
1,455,401 73/598,791 09/01/1987
1,455,596 73/599,346 09/01/1987
1,455,597 73/600,175 09/01/1987
1,454,886 73/600,991 09/01/1987
1,454,958 73/601,021 09/01/1987
1,455,743 73/601,029 09/01/1987
1,454,960 73/601,817 09/01/1987
1,454,961 73/602,130 09/01/1987
1,454,784 73/602,293 09/01/1987
1,455,644 73/602,567 09/01/1987
1,455,842 73/603,189 09/01/1987
1,454,855 73/603,816 09/01/1987
1,455,685 73/604,605 09/01/1987
1,455,764 73/604,735 09/01/1987
1,455,765 73/604,738 09/01/1987
1,455,111 73/604,743 09/01/1987
1,455,321 73/604,985 09/01/1987
1,455,844 73/604,990 09/01/1987
1,455,714 73/604,998 09/01/1987
1,454,968 73/605,151 09/01/1987
1,454,969 73/605,704 09/01/1987
1,454,812 73/605,796 09/01/1987
1,455,845 73/605,927 09/01/1987
1,454,970 73/606,001 09/01/1987
1,454,814 73/606,325 09/01/1987
1,455,846 73/606,327 09/01/1987
1,455,127 73/606,389 09/01/1987
1,455,333 73/606,694 09/01/1987
1,455,409 73/606,734 09/01/1987
1,455,112 73/607,301 09/01/1987
1,455,334 73/607,620 09/01/1987
1,455,383 73/607,829 09/01/1987
1,454,975 73/607,933 09/01/1987
1,454,976 73/607,938 09/01/1987
1,455,335 73/608,108 09/01/1987
1,454,979 73/608,202 09/01/1987
1,454,980 73/608,288 09/01/1987
1,455,848 73/608,371 09/01/1987
1,455,412 73/608,922 09/01/1987
1,455,384 73/609,120 09/01/1987
1,455,922 73/609,476 09/01/1987
1,454,985 73/609,483 09/01/1987
1,455,152 73/609,491 09/01/1987
1,455,850 73/609,665 09/01/1987
1,455,628 73/610,776 09/01/1987
1,455,851 73/611,151 09/01/1987
1,455,800 73/611,227 09/01/1987
1,454,990 73/611,263 09/01/1987
1,455,322 73/612,390 09/01/1987
1,455,231 73/612,603 09/01/1987
1,455,911 73/612,851 09/01/1987
1,455,908 73/613,302 09/01/1987
1,454,993 73/613,649 09/01/1987
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 36 |
1,455,233 73/614,217 09/01/1987
1,455,234 73/614,693 09/01/1987
1,455,718 73/614,717 09/01/1987
1,455,484 73/615,152 09/01/1987
1,455,854 73/616,127 09/01/1987
1,455,236 73/616,461 09/01/1987
1,454,995 73/616,733 09/01/1987
1,454,998 73/617,445 09/01/1987
1,455,629 73/617,986 09/01/1987
1,455,348 73/620,235 09/01/1987
1,455,003 73/620,413 09/01/1987
1,455,746 73/620,637 09/01/1987
1,455,803 73/620,922 09/01/1987
1,454,889 73/620,982 09/01/1987
1,455,005 73/621,478 09/01/1987
1,454,890 73/622,103 09/01/1987
1,455,856 73/622,272 09/01/1987
1,454,835 73/622,638 09/01/1987
1,454,836 73/622,639 09/01/1987
1,455,007 73/622,813 09/01/1987
1,455,465 73/623,599 09/01/1987
1,454,857 73/623,695 09/01/1987
1,455,188 73/623,760 09/01/1987
1,455,486 73/624,225 09/01/1987
1,455,242 73/624,387 09/01/1987
1,455,245 73/624,402 09/01/1987
1,455,690 73/624,916 09/01/1987
1,455,631 73/625,676 09/01/1987
1,455,246 73/625,684 09/01/1987
1,455,608 73/625,842 09/01/1987
1,455,379 73/625,884 09/01/1987
1,455,385 73/626,628 09/01/1987
1,455,176 73/626,656 09/01/1987
1,455,249 73/627,939 09/01/1987
1,455,338 73/628,048 09/01/1987
1,454,799 73/628,066 09/01/1987
1,455,424 73/628,118 09/01/1987
1,455,610 73/628,311 09/01/1987
1,455,349 73/628,817 09/01/1987
1,455,494 73/629,239 09/01/1987
1,455,495 73/629,439 09/01/1987
1,455,016 73/629,570 09/01/1987
1,455,250 73/630,487 09/01/1987
1,455,427 73/630,973 09/01/1987
1,455,498 73/631,188 09/01/1987
1,455,499 73/631,189 09/01/1987
1,455,860 73/631,390 09/01/1987
1,455,611 73/632,123 09/01/1987
1,455,133 73/632,190 09/01/1987
1,455,863 73/633,450 09/01/1987
1,455,932 73/633,480 09/01/1987
1,454,861 73/633,535 09/01/1987
1,455,768 73/633,614 09/01/1987
1,455,769 73/633,615 09/01/1987
1,455,025 73/633,910 09/01/1987
1,455,026 73/633,916 09/01/1987
1,454,894 73/634,264 09/01/1987
1,455,865 73/634,296 09/01/1987
1,455,867 73/634,953 09/01/1987
1,455,433 73/635,075 09/01/1987
1,455,434 73/635,097 09/01/1987
1,454,790 73/635,327 09/01/1987
1,455,258 73/635,332 09/01/1987
1,455,808 73/635,382 09/01/1987
1,455,031 73/635,386 09/01/1987
1,455,259 73/635,388 09/01/1987
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 37 |
1,455,435 73/635,673 09/01/1987
1,455,034 73/635,803 09/01/1987
1,455,035 73/635,804 09/01/1987
1,455,352 73/635,984 09/01/1987
1,454,800 73/636,015 09/01/1987
1,455,036 73/636,051 09/01/1987
1,455,193 73/636,353 09/01/1987
1,455,725 73/636,536 09/01/1987
1,455,042 73/636,711 09/01/1987
1,455,635 73/636,762 09/01/1987
1,455,043 73/636,890 09/01/1987
1,455,726 73/636,988 09/01/1987
1,455,159 73/637,305 09/01/1987
1,455,872 73/637,532 09/01/1987
1,455,044 73/637,698 09/01/1987
1,455,264 73/637,998 09/01/1987
1,455,046 73/638,016 09/01/1987
1,455,047 73/638,018 09/01/1987
1,455,728 73/638,112 09/01/1987
1,455,875 73/638,215 09/01/1987
1,455,048 73/638,370 09/01/1987
1,455,265 73/638,493 09/01/1987
1,455,751 73/638,601 09/01/1987
1,454,896 73/638,605 09/01/1987
1,455,196 73/638,767 09/01/1987
1,454,793 73/639,065 09/01/1987
1,455,781 73/639,387 09/01/1987
1,455,882 73/639,495 09/01/1987
1,455,053 73/639,918 09/01/1987
1,455,731 73/640,029 09/01/1987
1,455,888 73/640,086 09/01/1987
1,455,055 73/640,138 09/01/1987
1,455,756 73/640,149 09/01/1987
1,455,167 73/640,306 09/01/1987
1,455,056 73/640,332 09/01/1987
1,455,057 73/640,373 09/01/1987
1,455,328 73/640,556 09/01/1987
1,455,060 73/640,566 09/01/1987
1,455,733 73/640,572 09/01/1987
1,454,866 73/640,772 09/01/1987
1,455,117 73/640,792 09/01/1987
1,455,063 73/640,851 09/01/1987
1,455,064 73/640,882 09/01/1987
1,454,867 73/640,901 09/01/1987
1,455,701 73/640,970 09/01/1987
1,455,138 73/641,013 09/01/1987
1,455,066 73/641,114 09/01/1987
1,455,614 73/641,207 09/01/1987
1,455,068 73/641,217 09/01/1987
1,455,702 73/641,648 09/01/1987
1,455,738 73/641,675 09/01/1987
1,454,900 73/641,687 09/01/1987
1,454,902 73/641,744 09/01/1987
1,455,076 73/641,769 09/01/1987
1,455,671 73/641,842 09/01/1987
1,454,822 73/641,908 09/01/1987
1,455,077 73/641,968 09/01/1987
1,455,739 73/641,996 09/01/1987
1,455,079 73/642,219 09/01/1987
1,454,823 73/642,303 09/01/1987
1,455,275 73/642,343 09/01/1987
1,455,081 73/642,532 09/01/1987
1,455,082 73/642,563 09/01/1987
1,454,794 73/642,596 09/01/1987
1,455,085 73/642,953 09/01/1987
1,455,086 73/642,999 09/01/1987
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 38 |
1,455,170 73/643,031 09/01/1987
1,455,898 73/643,049 09/01/1987
1,455,087 73/643,114 09/01/1987
1,455,088 73/643,244 09/01/1987
1,455,526 73/643,289 09/01/1987
1,455,091 73/643,305 09/01/1987
1,455,528 73/643,354 09/01/1987
1,455,339 73/643,552 09/01/1987
1,455,534 73/643,588 09/01/1987
1,455,283 73/643,596 09/01/1987
1,455,118 73/643,617 09/01/1987
1,455,538 73/643,621 09/01/1987
1,455,284 73/643,659 09/01/1987
1,455,094 73/643,665 09/01/1987
1,455,096 73/643,755 09/01/1987
1,455,539 73/643,788 09/01/1987
1,455,541 73/643,802 09/01/1987
1,455,097 73/643,825 09/01/1987
1,455,544 73/643,891 09/01/1987
1,455,099 73/643,927 09/01/1987
1,454,875 73/643,951 09/01/1987
1,455,358 73/644,039 09/01/1987
1,455,359 73/644,040 09/01/1987
1,455,172 73/644,161 09/01/1987
1,455,547 73/644,260 09/01/1987
1,455,387 73/644,382 09/01/1987
1,455,174 73/644,394 09/01/1987
1,454,905 73/644,428 09/01/1987
1,455,294 73/644,675 09/01/1987
1,455,106 73/644,714 09/01/1987
1,455,145 73/644,827 09/01/1987
1,455,107 73/644,934 09/01/1987
1,455,446 73/645,185 09/01/1987
1,455,582 73/645,359 09/01/1987
1,455,648 73/645,446 09/01/1987
1,455,309 73/645,537 09/01/1987
1,455,313 73/645,943 09/01/1987
1,455,314 73/645,944 09/01/1987
1,455,448 73/646,115 09/01/1987
1,455,650 73/646,465 09/01/1987
1,455,450 73/647,028 09/01/1987
1,455,381 73/647,060 09/01/1987
1,455,455 73/647,437 09/01/1987
1,455,456 73/647,484 09/01/1987
1,455,464 73/647,700 09/01/1987
1,455,939 73/649,225 09/01/1987
2,093,336 74/321,015 09/02/1997
2,093,338 74/343,145 09/02/1997
2,092,370 74/382,589 09/02/1997
2,025,805 74/404,912 12/24/1996
2,092,379 74/416,920 09/02/1997
2,093,349 74/443,721 09/02/1997
2,093,358 74/477,529 09/02/1997
2,093,359 74/477,874 09/02/1997
2,093,360 74/483,867 09/02/1997
2,093,361 74/485,880 09/02/1997
2,092,389 74/492,416 09/02/1997
2,093,365 74/504,188 09/02/1997
2,093,366 74/505,355 09/02/1997
2,093,369 74/525,532 09/02/1997
2,093,380 74/549,319 09/02/1997
2,092,401 74/552,668 09/02/1997
2,093,384 74/559,744 09/02/1997
2,093,389 74/570,891 09/02/1997
2,092,415 74/587,276 09/02/1997
2,093,403 74/599,303 09/02/1997
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 39 |
2,092,419 74/599,408 09/02/1997
2,093,405 74/602,048 09/02/1997
2,093,410 74/604,722 09/02/1997
2,092,422 74/608,052 09/02/1997
2,093,418 74/611,299 09/02/1997
2,093,761 74/617,906 09/02/1997
2,093,423 74/621,432 09/02/1997
2,092,429 74/624,442 09/02/1997
2,092,431 74/627,549 09/02/1997
2,093,436 74/631,344 09/02/1997
2,092,435 74/631,985 09/02/1997
2,093,440 74/635,401 09/02/1997
2,093,441 74/637,788 09/02/1997
2,093,446 74/650,778 09/02/1997
2,093,453 74/655,263 09/02/1997
2,092,465 74/681,046 09/02/1997
2,093,469 74/682,346 09/02/1997
2,092,479 74/689,935 09/02/1997
2,092,487 74/699,205 09/02/1997
2,093,486 74/704,212 09/02/1997
2,092,502 74/718,755 09/02/1997
2,092,506 74/720,643 09/02/1997
2,092,507 74/722,099 09/02/1997
2,092,511 74/727,605 09/02/1997
2,020,488 74/730,315 12/03/1996
2,028,453 74/730,813 01/07/1997
2,002,907 74/731,054 09/24/1996
2,092,523 74/733,195 09/02/1997
2,093,527 74/735,148 09/02/1997
2,092,526 74/736,215 09/02/1997
2,093,531 75/000,308 09/02/1997
2,093,532 75/000,485 09/02/1997
2,093,539 75/007,911 09/02/1997
2,092,543 75/015,218 09/02/1997
2,092,544 75/015,825 09/02/1997
2,093,570 75/024,095 09/02/1997
2,093,575 75/026,725 09/02/1997
2,093,583 75/028,929 09/02/1997
2,093,587 75/030,398 09/02/1997
2,093,590 75/031,564 09/02/1997
2,093,593 75/032,731 09/02/1997
2,092,578 75/034,071 09/02/1997
2,092,580 75/035,128 09/02/1997
2,092,581 75/035,129 09/02/1997
2,093,597 75/035,875 09/02/1997
2,092,584 75/036,042 09/02/1997
2,092,585 75/036,043 09/02/1997
2,093,599 75/036,401 09/02/1997
2,092,590 75/038,069 09/02/1997
2,093,608 75/044,474 09/02/1997
2,093,611 75/044,853 09/02/1997
2,093,808 75/047,164 09/02/1997
2,092,617 75/048,107 09/02/1997
2,092,620 75/049,086 09/02/1997
2,092,621 75/049,310 09/02/1997
2,093,812 75/050,058 09/02/1997
2,092,631 75/051,570 09/02/1997
2,092,640 75/056,287 09/02/1997
2,092,646 75/057,465 09/02/1997
2,093,643 75/059,861 09/02/1997
2,093,644 75/059,862 09/02/1997
2,093,646 75/061,896 09/02/1997
2,093,647 75/061,934 09/02/1997
2,092,660 75/063,027 09/02/1997
2,092,671 75/066,477 09/02/1997
2,092,680 75/067,608 09/02/1997
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 40 |
2,092,682 75/068,240 09/02/1997
2,092,684 75/068,595 09/02/1997
2,093,657 75/068,804 09/02/1997
2,092,692 75/070,232 09/02/1997
2,092,693 75/070,509 09/02/1997
2,092,694 75/070,539 09/02/1997
2,092,696 75/070,920 09/02/1997
2,092,697 75/071,060 09/02/1997
2,092,699 75/071,649 09/02/1997
2,092,700 75/072,321 09/02/1997
2,092,711 75/076,477 09/02/1997
2,092,714 75/076,800 09/02/1997
2,092,717 75/077,221 09/02/1997
2,092,721 75/077,875 09/02/1997
2,093,825 75/077,925 09/02/1997
2,092,724 75/078,124 09/02/1997
2,092,730 75/078,744 09/02/1997
2,093,679 75/079,123 09/02/1997
2,092,731 75/079,342 09/02/1997
2,092,753 75/084,059 09/02/1997
2,093,686 75/084,371 09/02/1997
2,092,758 75/085,042 09/02/1997
2,092,760 75/085,348 09/02/1997
2,093,690 75/086,482 09/02/1997
2,093,833 75/087,272 09/02/1997
2,092,776 75/089,224 09/02/1997
2,092,777 75/089,285 09/02/1997
2,092,803 75/094,051 09/02/1997
2,092,809 75/095,654 09/02/1997
2,093,837 75/096,114 09/02/1997
2,092,814 75/096,777 09/02/1997
2,093,706 75/097,351 09/02/1997
2,092,827 75/099,490 09/02/1997
2,092,828 75/099,509 09/02/1997
2,092,830 75/100,278 09/02/1997
2,092,832 75/100,845 09/02/1997
2,092,833 75/100,880 09/02/1997
2,092,834 75/101,156 09/02/1997
2,092,835 75/101,157 09/02/1997
2,092,838 75/101,443 09/02/1997
2,093,840 75/102,245 09/02/1997
2,092,843 75/102,770 09/02/1997
2,092,852 75/106,107 09/02/1997
2,093,712 75/106,854 09/02/1997
2,092,858 75/107,034 09/02/1997
2,092,860 75/108,838 09/02/1997
2,092,869 75/112,173 09/02/1997
2,093,848 75/112,504 09/02/1997
2,092,873 75/112,991 09/02/1997
2,093,850 75/115,650 09/02/1997
2,092,882 75/116,036 09/02/1997
2,092,890 75/118,032 09/02/1997
2,092,892 75/118,290 09/02/1997
2,092,898 75/119,881 09/02/1997
2,092,916 75/124,087 09/02/1997
2,093,724 75/124,610 09/02/1997
2,092,920 75/125,608 09/02/1997
2,092,929 75/130,798 09/02/1997
2,092,932 75/131,247 09/02/1997
2,092,938 75/131,798 09/02/1997
2,092,941 75/132,597 09/02/1997
2,092,948 75/133,660 09/02/1997
2,092,954 75/135,143 09/02/1997
2,092,959 75/136,177 09/02/1997
2,092,968 75/137,586 09/02/1997
2,092,971 75/137,909 09/02/1997
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 41 |
2,092,990 75/141,581 09/02/1997
2,092,991 75/141,759 09/02/1997
2,093,014 75/145,000 09/02/1997
2,093,015 75/145,004 09/02/1997
2,093,016 75/145,005 09/02/1997
2,093,017 75/145,046 09/02/1997
2,093,031 75/149,256 09/02/1997
2,093,882 75/149,712 09/02/1997
2,093,032 75/149,875 09/02/1997
2,093,033 75/149,876 09/02/1997
2,093,883 75/149,882 09/02/1997
2,093,737 75/150,598 09/02/1997
2,093,059 75/154,179 09/02/1997
2,093,077 75/156,033 09/02/1997
2,093,078 75/156,121 09/02/1997
2,093,095 75/157,621 09/02/1997
2,093,109 75/159,140 09/02/1997
2,093,110 75/159,141 09/02/1997
2,093,118 75/159,758 09/02/1997
2,093,120 75/159,789 09/02/1997
2,093,124 75/160,501 09/02/1997
2,093,127 75/160,633 09/02/1997
2,093,138 75/162,125 09/02/1997
2,093,147 75/162,740 09/02/1997
2,093,153 75/163,905 09/02/1997
2,093,162 75/165,174 09/02/1997
2,093,163 75/165,287 09/02/1997
2,093,185 75/169,292 09/02/1997
2,093,186 75/169,293 09/02/1997
2,093,199 75/171,445 09/02/1997
2,093,224 75/177,469 09/02/1997
2,093,226 75/177,778 09/02/1997
2,093,230 75/178,189 09/02/1997
2,093,233 75/178,851 09/02/1997
2,093,239 75/180,820 09/02/1997
2,093,252 75/183,570 09/02/1997
2,093,281 75/189,448 09/02/1997
2,093,290 75/191,562 09/02/1997
2,093,295 75/196,076 09/02/1997
2,093,909 75/197,667 09/02/1997
2,093,299 75/198,568 09/02/1997
2,093,302 75/202,330 09/02/1997
2,093,303 75/203,007 09/02/1997
2,093,910 75/204,148 09/02/1997
2,093,309 75/206,749 09/02/1997
2,093,312 75/207,892 09/02/1997
2,093,316 75/212,226 09/02/1997
2,093,327 75/243,513 09/02/1997
2,093,743 75/975,855 09/02/1997
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventor whose signature is missing (Ravindra WIJESIRIWARDANA) may join
in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration
complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
PCT/GB2004/002192 and was filed 19 May 2004 in the names of Tilak DIAS,
Paul Charles William BEATTY, William COOKE, Ravindra WIJESIRIWARDANA,
Kim MITCHAM, Samir MUKHOPADHYAY, and William HURLEY for the invention
entitled KNITTED TRANSDUCER DEVICES. The national stage number is
10/557,074 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 09 April 2008.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Luciano RUI) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/FR2005/050007
and was filed 06 January 2005 in the name of Luciano RUI for the invention
entitled DEVICE FOR CLEANING ROLLERS. The national stage number is
10/584,495 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 29 October 2007.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventors whose signature is missing (Michael KAMLEITER) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/EP2004/010304
and was filed on 15 September 2004 in the name of Michael KAMLEITER and
Wilhelm N. GUDERNATSCH for the invention entitled FILTER MEDIUM. The
national stage application number is 11/632,631 and has a 35 U.S.C.
371(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) date of 28 November 2007.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of the sole inventor. The petition has been granted. A notice
has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Sylwester Gogolewski) may join
in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration
complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
PCT/CH2004/000471 and was filed on 26 July 2004 in the name of Sylwester
Gogolewski for the invention entitled "Biocompatible, Biodegradable
Polyurethane Materials with Controlled Hydrophobic to Hydrophilic Ratio".
The national stage application number is 11/572,648 and has a date of
07 April 2008 under 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4).
Registration to Practice
The following list contains the names of persons seeking for registration
to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Final
approval for registration is subject to establishing to the satisfaction of
the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline that the person
seeking registration is of good moral character and repute. 37 CFR § 11.7
Accordingly, any information tending to affect the eligibility of any of the
following persons on moral, ethical, or other grounds should be furnished
to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on or before July 18, 2008,
at the following address: Mail Stop OED, United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Aikin, Jacob Thomas, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, 1279 Oakmead Parkway,
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
Arbes, Justin Tyler, Hunton & Williams, LLP, 1900 K Street; N.W.,
Washington, DC 20006
Bennett, Mikal-Ellen, 6819 Country Club Drive, Huntington, WV 25705
Bryan, Timothy Michael, 140 Boylston Street Apt. #4, Boston, MA 02116
Chaudhry, Anil, 179 Walek Farms Road, Manchester, CT 06040
Cheong, Soonwuk, 100 Denniston Avenue, #69, Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Diokno, Xavier Pascual, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1940 W. Taylor
Street, Room 124, Chicago, IL 60612
Dokhanchy, Michael Reza, 3262 Woodview Drive, Lafayette, CA 94549
Dorner, Kenneth Joseph 5144 Summit Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030
Dyll, Timothy James, Baker Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75201
Ellsworth, Christopher James, Cardinal Law Group, 1739 Fairview Avenue
North, Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Gage, Matthew Karl, Schumaker & Sieffert (Law Firm), 1625 Radio Drive,
Suite 300, Woodbury, MN 55125
Grewal, Amardeep Singh, 1701 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest, Apartment
#109, Washington, DC 20036
Halloran, Kristine Diane, 1326 Fairmont Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105
Harlow, Jessica Lynn, 311 Millview Lane, Lynchburg, VA 24502
Jorgenson, Adrian Thomas, Cameron IP 1166 Alberni Street, Suite 1401,
Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3Z3, Canada
Kerrane, Sara Nazli, 3423 Spectrum, Irvine, CA 92618
Mattia, Scott Albert, 723 Highland Lake Circle, Decatur, GA 30033
Mohamud, Ismail Nur, Nokia, 6000 Connection Drive, Mail Stop 1-4-755,
Irving, TX 75039
Nelson, Michael Baird, United States Patent and Trademark Office,
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 6024, Alexandria, VA 22314
Park, Michelle Eunah, Proskauer Rose LLP, 1 International Place, Boston,
MA 02110
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 44 |
Parker, Kevin Lynn, 5615 Hempstead Road, Apartment 204, Pittsburgh,
PA 15217
Scott, Jacob Steven, 705 S. Jefferson Street, Apartment #5, Spokane,
WA 99204
Sosinski, Joseph Walter, Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor; & Zafman, 1279
Oakmead Parkway, Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
Tobias, Scott Mitchell, 421 18th Avenue East, #3, Seattle, WA 98112
Tuman, Douglas Louis, 159 Harrison Avenue; Apartment A, Mineola, NY 11501
June 3, 2008 HARRY I. MOATZ
Director of Enrollment & Discipline
Status of Public Records Division |
Status of Public Records Division
The Public Records Division (PRD) processes and fills orders for both
certified and uncertified copies of Patent and Trademark Office documents
and records assignments and other documents related to title. This is an
update of actual processing times for orders filled during the month of
May 2008:
Document Services Goal Actual
Processing
Time
Certified Documents
Patent Applications-As-Filed 7 days 3 days
Patent Related File Wrappers 25 days 15 days
Patent Copies 10 days 2 days
Patent Assignments 10 days 4 days
Trademark Applications-As-Filed 7 days 3 days
Trademark Related File Wrappers 25 days 12 days
Trademark Assignments 10 days 3 days
Trademark Registrations,
Expedited 5 days 2 days
Trademark Registrations,
Regular 14 days 5 days
Uncertified Documents
Patent Copies 5 days 1 day
Plant Patents 5 days 0 days
Patent Assignments 10 days 1 day
Patent Related File Wrappers 25 days 7 days
Trademark Copies 5 days 1 day
Trademark Assignments 10 days 1 day
Trademark Related File Wrappers 25 days 7 days
Customers should use the above actual processing time for each product as a
guide as to when they can expect their orders to be completed. In cases
where an urgent deadline is approaching, contact Document Services Customer
Service at (571) 272-3150 or 1 (800) 972-6382 for assistance with a
particular order.
Customers are encouraged to place orders through the Internet at
http://ebiz1.uspto.gov/oems25p
Orders may also be faxed to the Document Services Branch at (571) 273-3250.
Information on the status of pending orders may be obtained by calling
(571) 272-3150 or 1 (800) 972-6382 (outside the Washington, DC Metro area),
or via E-mail to dsd@uspto.gov.
ASSIGNMENT SERVICES
Goal Actual
Processing
Time
Submission Method
Internet (EFS, ePAS or eTAS) 2 days 1 day
Fax 10 days 1 day
Paper 14 days 1 day
The Assignment Services Branch is currently mailing recordation notices for
paper documents received in the Public Records Division on May 28, 2008.
Customers should use the above actual processing times as a guide as to
when they can expect their assignment submissions to be processed. For
fastest service customers are encouraged to file assignments via the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 46 |
Internet.
Assignment submissions may be made via the Internet at
http://epas.uspto.gov/ for patent assignments and
http://etas.uspto.gov for trademark assignments. Patent assignment
submissions may also be made by selecting the "Electronic Filing (EFS)"
option at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc.
Assignment submissions may also be faxed to the Assignment Services Branch
at (571) 273-0140. Trademark assignment recordations may be reviewed online
at http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments. Information on the status of
pending assignment recordations may be obtained by calling (571) 272-3350
or 1 (800) 972-6382 (outside the Washington, DC Metro area).
June 3, 2008 AMANDA PUTNAM
Manager, Public Records Division
Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 41
[Docket No. PTO-P-2007-0006]
RIN 0651-AC12
Rules of Practice Before the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
in Ex Parte Appeals
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office amends the
rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences in ex parte patent appeals. Amendments to the rules
governing practice before the Board in ex parte appeals are needed to
permit the Board to handle an increasing number of ex parte appeals in
a timely manner.
DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2008.
Applicability Date: The final rule shall apply to all appeals in
which an appeal brief is filed on or after the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred E. McKelvey or Allen R. MacDonald
at 571-272-9797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register (72 FR 41,472-41,490 (Jul. 30, 2007)). The notice was also
published in the Official Gazette. 1321 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 95 (Aug.
21, 2007). The public was invited to submit written comments. Comments
were to be received on or before September 30, 2007. Comments received
on or before October 15, 2007, were considered. Comments received after
October 15, 2007, were not considered.
Existing rules in Part 1 are denominated as "Rule x" in this
supplementary information. A reference to Rule 136(a) is a reference to
37 CFR 1.136(a) (2007).
Existing rules in Part 41 are denominated as "Rule 41.x" in this
supplementary information. A reference to Rule 41.3 is a reference to
37 CFR 41.3 (2007).
Proposed rules in the notice of proposed rulemaking and this final
rule are denominated as "Bd.R. x" in this supplementary information.
A reference to Bd.R. 41.3 is a reference to Bd.R. 41.3, as proposed to
be amended in the notice of proposed rulemaking, or Bd.R. 41.3 as
amended by this final rule.
A portion of the Board's jurisdiction is to consider and decide ex
parte appeals in patent applications (including reissue, design and
plant patent applications) and ex parte reexamination proceedings.
Presently, the Board is experiencing a rapid increase in ex parte
appeals. In FY 2007, the Board received 4639 ex parte appeals. The
number of appeals received in FY 2007 exceeded the appeals received in
FY 2006 by more than 1000 appeals. In FY 2008, the Board expects to
receive more than 6000 ex parte appeals. The amendments to the rules
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 48 |
governing ex parte appeals are one item of a five point plan to ensure
that the Board will be able to handle an increasing number of ex parte
appeals in a timely manner. Some of the changes are modeled after the
Federal Circuit rules.
The amended rules make clear that the Board is not a tribunal for
de novo examination. The rules establish procedures to determine
whether an appellant has established that the examiner erred. For
example, the rules require the appellant's argument shall explain why
the examiner is believed to have erred as to each rejection to be
reviewed. Arguments not made are waived.
A major objective of the amended rules is to avoid unnecessary
returns to examiners by the Appeals Center and the Board, along with
the resulting delays in application and appeal pendency. The
requirements of the amended rules are believed to be more objective
and, therefore, both appellants and examiners will have a better
understanding of what is required, thereby minimizing, if not
eliminating, a need to hold appeal briefs defective. If a rule does not
require an action to be taken in connection with an appeal brief, then
a brief will not be held defective for failure to take that action.
Some former rules have turned out in practice to be too subjective. For
example, the former rules require a summary of the invention.
Appellants, as well as examiners, have given different interpretations
to the requirement for a summary of the invention. The amended rules
replace the requirement for a summary of the invention with a claims
and drawing analysis and a means or step plus function analysis.
Appellants have also had difficulty complying with the evidence
appendix requirement. Compliance with the amended rules is expected to
ensure that the Appeals Center and the Board, working together, can
minimize, possibly eliminate, unwarranted returns to examiners based on
non-compliant appeal brief requirements.
The amended rules are directed to improving appellant briefing. A
30-page limit for the brief will promote concise and precise writing.
Any statement of the real party in interest, statement of related
cases, table of contents, table of authorities, status of amendments,
jurisdictional statement, signature block, and appendix are excluded
from the 30-page limit. The amended rules also require a "statement of
facts" section where the appellant is required to set out the material
facts relevant to the rejections on appeal.
The amended rules require an "argument" section where an
appellant shall explain why the examiner is believed to have erred as
to each rejection to be reviewed. Any explanation must address all
points made by the examiner with which the appellant disagrees and must
identify where the argument was made in the first instance to the
examiner or state that the argument has not previously been made to the
examiner. By having a clear focus on the dispute and making clear what
arguments have been and have not been presented to the examiner, the
USPTO reviewers as well as the examiner can make a well-informed
decision on (1) whether to proceed with the appeal or (2) whether to
withdraw the rejection.
Finally, the amended rules improve uniform enforcement of the
rules. Petitions are decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge
of the Board. Under former rules, petitions are decided by the Director
of each Technology Center. The rules also allow for sanctions which may
be imposed against an appellant for failure to comply with an
applicable rule.
The rules do not amend any of the rules relating to inter partes
reexamination appeals. Except for citation of authorities, the rules do
not amend any of the rules relating to contested cases.
Explanation of New Rules
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 49 |
What follows is a discussion of the new appeal rules. Further
information relevant to particular rules appears in the analysis of
comments portion of this final rule.
Definitions
Bd.R. 41.2 amends Rule 41.2 to eliminate from the definition of
"Board" any reference to a proceeding under Bd.R. 41.3 relating to
petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. Action by the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge is action on behalf of the Director by
delegation to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. See MPEP § 1002.02(f)
(8th ed., Aug., 2006).
Bd.R. 41.2 also amends Rule 41.2 to eliminate a petition under
Bd.R. 41.3 from the definition of contested case. At the present time,
there are no petitions authorized in a contested case.
Petitions
Bd.R. 41.3 is amended to include a delegation of authority from the
Director to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge to decide certain
petitions authorized by Part 41. The delegation of authority would be
in addition to that already set out in the MPEP § 1002.02(f) (8th
ed., Aug., 2006). The petitions would include (1) seeking an extension
of time to file certain papers after an appeal brief is filed in an ex
parte appeal and (2) enlarging the page limit of an appeal brief, reply
brief, or request for rehearing.
Bd.R. 41.3(b) is amended to define the scope of petitions which can
be filed pursuant to the rules. Under Bd.R. 41.3(b), a petition could
not be filed to seek review of issues committed by statute to a panel.
See, e.g., In re Dickinson, 299 F.2d 954, 958 (CCPA 1962).
Timeliness
Bd.R. 41.4(c) is amended to add the phrase "Except to the extent
provided in this part" and to revise paragraph 2 to read: "Filing of
a notice of appeal and an appeal brief (see §§ 41.31(c) and
41.37(c))." The amendment restricts Bd.R. 41.4(c)(2) to the notice of
appeal and appeal brief. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge would
determine whether extensions are to be granted for the filing of most
other papers during the pendency of the appeal.
Citation of Authority
The notice of proposed rulemaking did not propose a change to Bd.R.
41.12 which concerns citation of authority. Rule 41.12 currently
requires the public to cite to specific reporters, including some
parallel citations. The Board, however, no longer follows the practice
specified in Rule 41.12, and does not use parallel citations.
Accordingly, Bd.R. 41.12 is being amended to make the rule consistent
with Board practice and minimize the citation burden on the public.
Under Bd.R. 41.12, as amended, a citation to a single source, in the
priority order set out in the rule, will be sufficient.
Definitions
Bd.R. 41.30 is amended to add a definition of "Record." The
Record on appeal would be the official content of the file of an
application or reexamination proceeding on appeal. In the rules, a
reference to "Record" with a capital R is a reference to the Record
as defined in Bd.R. 41.30. The definition advises applicants of what
documents the Board will consider in resolving the appeal. The
definition also makes it clear to any reviewing court what record was
considered by the Board.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 50 |
Appeal to Board
Bd.R. 41.31(a) provides that an appeal is taken from a decision of
the examiner to the Board by filing a notice of appeal. The following
language would be acceptable under the rule: "An appeal is taken from
the decision of the examiner mailed [specify date appealed rejection
was mailed]." An appeal can be taken when authorized by the statute 35
U.S.C. 134. The provision of Rule 41.31(b) that a notice of appeal need
not be signed has been removed. Papers filed in connection with an
appeal, including the notice of appeal, would need to be signed in
accordance with § 1.33 of this title.
Bd.R. 41.31(b) requires that the notice of appeal be accompanied by
the fee required by law and would refer to the rule that specifies the
required fee.
Bd.R. 41.31(c) specifies the time within which a notice of appeal
would have to be filed in order to be considered timely. The time for
filing a notice of appeal appears in Rule 134.
Bd.R. 41.31(d) provides that a request for an extension of time to
file a notice of appeal in an application is governed by Rule 136(a).
Bd.R. 41.31(d) also provides that a request for an extension of time to
file a notice of appeal in an ex parte reexamination proceeding is
governed by Rule 550(c).
Bd.R. 41.31(e) defines a "non-appealable issue" as an issue that
is not subject to an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134. Non-appealable issues
are issues (1) over which the Board does not exercise authority in
appeal proceedings and (2) which are handled by a petition. Non-
appealable issues include such matters as an examiner's refusal to (1)
enter a response to a final rejection, (2) enter evidence presented
after a final rejection, (3) enter an appeal brief or a reply brief, or
(4) withdraw a restriction requirement. The rules contemplate that some
petitions relating to non-appealable issues are to be decided by the
Chief Administrative Patent Judge. Some of those non-appealable issues
include: (1) A petition to exceed the page limit and (2) a petition to
extend the time for filing a paper in the appeal after the filing of
the appeal brief. An applicant or patent owner dissatisfied with a
decision of an examiner on a non-appealable issue would be required to
seek review by petition before an appeal is considered on the merits.
Failure to timely file a petition seeking review of a decision of the
examiner related to a non-appealable issue would generally constitute a
waiver to have those issues considered. The language "[f]ailure to
timely file" would be interpreted to mean not filed within the time
set out in the rules. For example, Rule 1.181(f) provides that any
petition under Rule 181 not filed within two months of the mailing date
of the action or notice from which relief is requested may be dismissed
as untimely. The object of the amendment to the rule is to maximize
resolution of non-appealable issues before an appeal is considered on
the merits. Under current practice, an applicant or a patent owner
often does not timely seek to have non-appealable issues resolved,
thereby necessitating a remand by the Board to the examiner to have a
non-appealable issue resolved. The remand adds to the pendency of an
application or reexamination proceeding and, in some instances, may
unnecessarily enlarge patent term adjustment. The Office intends to
strictly enforce the waiver provisions of Bd.R. 41.31(e) with the view
of making the appeal process administratively efficient. While the
Office will retain discretion to excuse a failure to timely settle non-
appealable issues, it is expected that exercise of that discretion will
be reserved for truly unusual circumstances.
Amendments and Evidence Filed After Appeal and Before Brief
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 51 |
Bd.R. 41.33(a) provides that an amendment filed after the date a
notice of appeal is filed and before an appeal brief is filed may be
admitted as provided in Rule 116.
Bd.R. 41.33(b), under two circumstances, gives the examiner
discretion to enter an amendment filed with or after an appeal brief is
filed. A first circumstance would be to cancel claims, provided
cancellation of claims does not affect the scope of any other pending
claim in the proceedings. A second circumstance would be to rewrite
dependent claims into independent form.
Bd.R. 41.33(c) provides that all other amendments filed after the
date an appeal brief is filed will not be admitted, except as permitted
by (1) Bd.R. 41.50(b)(1) (request for amendment after remand), (2)
Bd.R. 41.50(d)(1) (request to reopen prosecution after entry of new ground
of rejection by the Board), and (3) Bd.R. 41.50(e) (amendment after
recommendation by the Board).
Bd.R. 41.33(d) provides that evidence filed after a notice of
appeal is filed and before an appeal brief is filed may be admitted if
(1) the examiner determines that the evidence overcomes at least one
rejection under appeal and (2) appellant shows good cause why the
evidence was not earlier presented. The first step in an analysis of
whether evidence may be admitted is a showing of good cause why the
evidence was not earlier presented. The Office has found that too often
an applicant or a patent owner belatedly presents evidence as an
afterthought and that the evidence was, or should have been, readily
available. Late presentation of evidence is not consistent with
efficient administration of the appeal process. Under the rule, the
Office would strictly apply the good cause standard. Cf. Hahn v. Wong,
892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989). For example, a change of attorneys at
the appeal stage or an unawareness of the requirement of a rule would
not constitute a showing of good cause. If good cause is not shown, the
analysis ends and the evidence would not be admitted. In those cases
where good cause is shown, a second analysis will be made to determine
if the evidence would overcome at least one rejection. Even where good
cause is shown, if the evidence does not overcome at least one
rejection, the evidence would not be admitted. Alternatively, the
examiner could determine that the evidence does not overcome at least
one rejection under appeal and does not necessitate any new ground of
rejection and on that basis alone could refuse to admit the evidence.
Bd.R. 41.33(e) provides that evidence filed after an appeal brief
is filed will not be admitted except as permitted by (1) Bd.R.
41.50(b)(1) (request to reopen prosecution after entry of a remand by
the Board), and (2) Bd.R. 41.50(d)(1) (request to reopen prosecution
after new ground of rejection entered by the Board).
Jurisdiction Over Appeal
Bd.R. 41.35(a) provides that the Board acquires jurisdiction when
the Board mails a docket notice. At an appropriate time after
proceedings are completed before the examiner, a docket notice
identifying the appeal number would be entered in the application or
reexamination proceeding file and mailed to the appellant. A new docket
notice identifying a new appeal number would be mailed upon return of
the case to the Board following remand. By delaying the transfer of
jurisdiction until the appeal is fully briefed and the position of the
appellant is fully presented for consideration by the examiner and the
Office reviewers (appeal conferees), the possibility exists that the
examiner will find some or all of the appealed claims patentable
without the necessity of proceeding with the appeal and invoking the
jurisdiction of the Board. For this reason, jurisdiction transfers to
the Board only after (1) the appellant has filed an appeal brief, (2)
the examiner's answer has been mailed, and (3) the appellant has filed
a reply brief or the time for filing a reply brief has expired. Rule
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 52 |
41.35(a) provides that the Board acquires jurisdiction upon transmittal
of the file, including all briefs and examiner's answers, to the Board.
Under that practice, however, an appellant may or may not know the date
when a file is transmitted to the Board. Most files are now electronic
files (Image File Wrapper or IFW file) as opposed to a paper file
wrapper. Accordingly, a paper file wrapper is no longer transmitted to
the Board. Under current practice, the Board prepares a docket notice
which is (1) entered in the IFW file and (2) mailed to appellant. Upon
receipt of the docket notice, appellant knows that the Board has
acquired jurisdiction over the appeal. Bd.R. 41.35(a) codifies current
practice and establishes a precise date, known to all involved, as to
when jurisdiction is transferred to the Board.
Bd.R. 41.35(b) provides that the jurisdiction of the Board ends
when (1) the Board mails a remand order (see § 41.50(b) or
§ 41.50(d)(1)), (2) the Board mails a final decision (see § 41.50(a)
and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking judicial review
has expired, (3) an express abandonment is filed which complies with
§ 1.138 of this title, or (4) a request for continued examination
is filed which complies with § 1.114 of this title. The Board knows
when it mails a remand order and when it mails a final decision. The
Board does not know if an express abandonment or a request for
continued examination is filed. One problem the Board has had in the
past is that an appellant does not notify the Board that it has filed
an express abandonment or a request for continued examination and the
Board continues to work on the appeal. Often failure to notify occurs
after oral hearing. Accordingly, an appellant should notify the Board
immediately if an express abandonment or a request for continued
examination is filed. If any notification reaches the Board after a
remand order or a final decision is mailed, the remand order or final
decision will not be removed from the file.
There are two occasions when a remand is entered. First, a remand
is entered when the Board is of the opinion that clarification on a
point of fact or law is needed. See Bd.R. 41.50(b). Second, a remand is
entered when an appellant elects further prosecution before the
examiner following entry of a new ground of rejection by the Board. See
Bd.R. 41.50(d)(1). Upon entry of a remand, the Board's jurisdiction
ends.
The Board also no longer has jurisdiction as a matter of law when
an appeal to the Federal Circuit is filed in the USPTO. See In re
Allen, 115 F.2d 936, 939 (CCPA 1940) and In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1149 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A final decision is a panel decision which
disposes of all issues with regard to a party eligible to seek judicial
review and does not indicate that further action is needed. See Rule
41.2 (definition of "final"). When a party requests rehearing, a
decision becomes final when the Board decides the request for
rehearing. A decision including a remand or a new ground of rejection
is an interlocutory order and is not a final decision. If an appellant
elects to ask for rehearing to contest a new ground of rejection, the
decision on rehearing is a final decision for the purpose of judicial
review.
Bd.R. 41.35(c) would continue current practice and provide that the
Director could sua sponte order an appeal to be remanded to an examiner
before entry of a Board decision has been mailed. The Director has
inherent authority to order a sua sponte remand to the examiner.
Ordinarily, a rule is not necessary for the Director to exercise
inherent authority. However, in this particular instance, it is
believed that a statement in the rule of the Director's inherent
authority serves an appropriate public notice function.
Appeal Brief
Bd.R. 41.37 provides for filing an appeal brief to perfect an
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 53 |
appeal and sets out the requirements for appeal briefs. The appeal
brief is a highly significant document in an ex parte appeal. Appeal
brief experience under Rule 41.37 has been mixed. Bd.R. 41.37 seeks to
(1) take advantage of provisions of Rule 41.37 which have proved
useful, (2) clarify provisions which have been subject to varying
interpretations by counsel, and (3) add provisions which are expected
to make the decision-making process more focused and efficient.
Bd.R. 41.37(a) provides that an appeal brief shall be filed to
perfect an appeal. Upon a failure to timely file an appeal brief,
proceedings on the appeal would be considered terminated. The language
"without further action on the part of the Office" gives notice that
no action, including entry of a paper by the Office, would be necessary
for the appeal to be considered terminated. Bd.R. 41.37(a) does not
preclude the Office from entering a paper notifying an applicant or
patent owner that the appeal has been terminated. Any failure of the
Office to enter a paper notifying an applicant or patent owner that an
appeal stands terminated would not affect the terminated status of the
appeal. The language "proceedings are considered terminated" provides
notice that when (1) no appeal brief is filed and (2) no claims are
allowed, the time for filing a continuing application under 35 U.S.C.
120 would be before the time expires for filing an appeal brief. The
language "terminated" is used because proceedings on appeal are over
prior to mailing of a docket notice pursuant to Bd.R. 41.35(a).
Dismissal of an appeal takes place after a docket notice is mailed
since only the Board dismisses an appeal (Bd.R. 41.35(b)(2)).
Bd.R. 41.37(b) provides that the appeal brief shall be accompanied
by the fee required by Bd.R. 41.20(b)(2).
Bd.R. 41.37(c) provides that an appellant must file an appeal brief
within two months from the filing of the notice of appeal.
Bd.R. 41.37(d) provides that the time for filing an appeal brief is
extendable under the provisions of Rule 136(a) for applications and
Rule 550(c) for ex parte reexamination proceedings. Consideration was
given to proposing a requirement for a petition to extend the time for
filing an appeal brief. However, in view of the pre-appeal conference
pilot program (see Official Gazette of July 12, 2005;
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.
html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/
week28/patbref.htm), and in an effort to encourage continued participation
in that pilot program, further consideration on whether to require a
petition will be deferred pending further experience by the Office in
the pre-appeal conference pilot program.
Bd.R. 41.37(e) provides that an appeal brief must contain, under
appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Statement of the real party in interest, (2) statement of related
cases, (3) jurisdictional statement, (4) table of contents, (5) table
of authorities, (6) [reserved], (7) status of amendments, (8) grounds
of rejection to be reviewed, (9) statement of facts, (10) argument, and
(11) an appendix containing (a) claims section, (b) claim support and
drawing analysis section, (c) means or step plus function analysis
section, (d) evidence section, and (e) related cases section. The items
are otherwise defined in other subsections of Bd.R. 41.37 and, where
applicable, would apply to appeal briefs and reply briefs (Bd.R. 41.41).
Bd.R. 41.37(f) requires a "statement of real party in interest"
which would include an identification of the name of the real party in
interest. The principal purpose of an identification of the name of the
real party in interest is to permit members of the Board to assess
whether recusal is required or would otherwise be appropriate. Another
purpose is to assist employees of the Board to comply with the Ethics
in Government Act. Since a real party in interest can change during the
pendency of an appeal, there would be a continuing obligation to update
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 54 |
the real party in interest during the pendency of the appeal. If an
appeal brief does not contain a statement of real party in interest,
the Office will assume that the named inventors are the real party in
interest.
Bd.R. 41.37(g) requires an appeal brief to include a "statement of
related cases." The statement of related cases would identify related
cases by (1) application number, patent number, appeal number or
interference number or (2) court docket number. The statement would
encompass all prior or pending appeals, interferences or judicial
proceedings known to any inventors, any attorneys or agents who
prepared or prosecuted the application on appeal and any other person
who was substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the
application on appeal. A related case is one which would directly
affect, or would be directly affected by or have a bearing on the
Board's decision in the appeal. A copy of any final or significant
interlocutory decision rendered by the Board or a court in any
proceeding identified under this paragraph shall be included in the
related cases section in the appendix (Bd.R. 41.37(u)). A significant
interlocutory decision would include (1) a decision on a patentability
motion in an interference or (2) a decision in an interference or a
court interpreting a claim. A related case includes any continuing
application of the application on appeal. If an appellant fails to
advise the Board that it has filed a continuing application or a
request for continued examination, or that it has filed an express
abandonment of the application on appeal and the Board mails a decision
on appeal in the application on appeal, the appellant should expect
that the decision will not be removed from the file. The time to update
a statement of related cases, or notify the Board that an application
on appeal has been abandoned, is when the continuing application,
request for continued examination, or express abandonment is filed.
Appellant would be under a continuing obligation to update a statement
of related cases during the pendency of the appeal. If an appeal brief
does not contain a statement of related cases, the Office will assume
that there are no related cases.
Bd.R. 41.37(h) requires an appeal brief to contain a
"jurisdictional statement" which would set out why an appellant
believes that the Board has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The
jurisdictional statement would include a statement of (1) the statute
under which the appeal is taken, (2) the date of the decision from
which the appeal is taken, (3) the date the notice of appeal was filed,
and (4) the date the appeal brief is being filed. If a notice of appeal
or an appeal brief is filed after the time specified in the rules, the
appellant also would have to indicate (1) the date an extension of time
was requested, and (2) if known, the date the request was granted. A
jurisdictional statement will minimize the chance that the Board will
consider an appeal when the application on appeal is abandoned or a
reexamination proceeding on appeal has terminated. An example of a
jurisdictional statement is: "The Board has jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. 134(a). The Examiner mailed a final rejection on August 1, 2006,
setting a three-month shortened statutory period for response. The time
for responding to the final rejection expired on November 1, 2006. Rule
134. A notice of appeal and a request for a one-month extension of time
under Rule 136(a) was filed on November 15, 2006. The time for filing
an appeal brief is two months after the filing of a notice of appeal.
Bd.R. 41.37(c). The time for filing an appeal brief expired on January
16, 2007 (Monday, January 15, 2007, being a Federal holiday). The
appeal brief is being filed on January 16, 2007." If during the
preparation of a jurisdictional statement, an appellant becomes aware
that its application is abandoned, the appellant could then take steps
to revive the application, if revival is appropriate. See Rule 137.
Bd.R. 41.37(i) requires an appeal brief to contain a "table of
contents" identifying the items listed in Bd.R. 41.37(e) along with a
page reference where each item begins. In the case of a reply brief,
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 55 |
the table of contents would identify the items required by the reply
brief rule (Bd.R. 41.41(d)).
Bd.R. 41.37(j) requires an appeal brief to contain a "table of
authorities." This item would list (1) court and administrative
decisions (alphabetically arranged), (2) statutes, and (3) other
authorities, along with a reference to the pages of the appeal brief
where each authority is cited. A similar requirement applies to a reply
brief.
Bd.R. 41.37(k) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.37(l) requires an appeal brief to indicate the "status of
amendments" for all amendments filed after final rejection (e.g.,
entered or not entered). Examples of a status of amendments might read
as follows: (1) "No amendment was filed after final rejection." (2)
"An amendment filed October 31, 2006, was not entered by the
examiner." (3) "An amendment filed November 1, 2006, was entered by
the examiner." (4) "An amendment filed October 31, 2006, was not
entered by the examiner, but an amendment filed November 1, 2006, was
entered by the examiner."
Bd.R. 41.37(m) requires an appeal brief to set out the grounds of
rejection to be reviewed, including the claims subject to each
rejection. Examples might read as follows: (1) "Rejection of claim 2
as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over Johnson." (2)
"Rejection of claims 2-3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
over Johnson and Young." (3) "Rejection of claim 2 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. 112." (4) "Rejection of claim 2 as failing to comply
with the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
112." (5) "Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on recapture."
Bd.R. 41.37(n) requires a "statement of facts." Appellant will
set out in an objective and non-argumentative manner the material facts
relevant to the rejections on appeal, preferably in numbered
paragraphs. A clear, concise and complete statement of relevant facts
will clarify the position of an appellant on dispositive issues and
assist the examiner in reconsidering the patentability of the rejected
claims.
A significant requirement of Bd.R. 41.37(n) is that a fact would be
required to be supported by a reference to the page number of the
Record. Where appropriate, the citation should also be to a specific
line or paragraph and to a drawing figure and element number of the
Record (see Bd.R. 41.37(t)). Statements of facts should be set out in
short declarative sentences, and each sentence should address a single
fact. For example, "In rejecting claims 1-5, the examiner cites Jones
(col. 4, lines 1-4)." "Jones describes a widget (col. 5, lines 56-61
and Figure 1, elements 12 and 13)." A compound statement of fact is
not proper, e.g., "Jones describes a widget (col. 8, lines 3-4) and
Smith does not describe a widget." A statement of facts would have to
be non-argumentative, meaning that an appellant would not be able to
argue its appeal in the statement of facts. Rather, the statement of
facts is designed to require an appellant to set out the facts which
the appellant considers material for resolution of the appeal, thereby
assisting the examiner initially and, if necessary, the Board
thereafter to focus on the dispositive portions of the record. For
example, in the case of a rejection for obviousness under section 103,
the facts should address at least the scope and content of the prior
art, any differences between the claim on appeal and the prior art, and
the level of skill in the art. In the past, some appellants have
provided minimal factual development in an appeal brief, apparently
believing that the Board will scour the record to divine the facts. It
should be remembered that when the appeal reaches the Board, the panel
members do not know anything about the appellant's invention or the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 56 |
prosecution history of the application on appeal.
Likewise, too often an appellant will not support a statement of
fact in an appeal brief by an explicit reference to the evidence. A
statement of fact based on the specification would be proper if
supported by a reference to page and line or paragraph (and where
appropriate also to drawing figure and element number). A statement of
fact based on a patent would be proper if it is supported by a
reference to a column and line (and where appropriate also to a drawing
figure and element number). A statement of fact based on an affidavit
would be proper if supported by a reference to a page and line number
or to a page and paragraph number of the affidavit; the affidavit would
appear in the evidence section (Bd.R. 41.37(t)) in the appendix.
A specific citation is required because an appellant should not
expect the examiner or the Board to search the record to determine
whether a statement of fact is supported by the evidence. Bd.R.
41.37(n) is consistent with the approaches taken by federal courts
concerning appeal brief practice and other briefing practice: (1)
Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., 988 F. Supp. 1109, 1114, n.16
(N.D. Ill. 1997) (where a party points the court to a multi-page
exhibit without citing a specific portion or page, the court will not
pour over the documents to extract the relevant information); (2) Ernst
Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999)
("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the
record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve
generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation.");
(3) Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2000) ("[W]e will not search the record on the chance of discovering
* * * whether the district court abused its discretion."); (4) Gorence
v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 242 F.3d 759, 762-63 (7th Cir. 2001)
("Little has been done * * * to make slogging through the record here
either more efficient or more pleasant. And it is simply not true, we
want to emphasize, that if a litigant presents an overload of
irrelevant or non-probative facts, somehow the irrelevancies will add
up to relevant evidence * * *"); and (5) DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181
F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[An appeal] brief must make all
arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play
archaeologist with the record.") See also (1) Shiokawa v. Maienfisch,
56 USPQ2d 1970, 1975 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000) and (2) LeVeen v.
Edwards, 57 USPQ2d 1406, 1413 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000).
Bd.R. 41.37(o) requires that an appeal brief contain an argument
comprising an analysis explaining, as to each rejection to be reviewed,
why the appellant believes the examiner erred. The analysis would have
to address all points made by the examiner with which the appellant
disagrees. The presentation of a concise, but comprehensive, argument
in response to the final rejection (1) will efficiently frame any
dispute between the appellant and the examiner not only for the benefit
of the Board but also for consideration by the examiner and Office
reviewers (appeal conferees) and (2) provide the best opportunity for
resolution of the dispute without the necessity of proceeding with the
appeal.
Where an argument has previously been presented to the examiner,
the analysis would have to identify where any argument being made to
the Board was made in the first instance to the examiner. Where an
argument has not previously been made to the examiner, an appellant
would be required to say so in the appeal brief so that the examiner
would know that the argument is new. An example where an argument might
not have been previously made to an examiner might occur under the
following fact scenario. A first Office action rejects claims over
Reference A. Applicant amends theclaims to avoid Reference A. The examiner
enters a final rejection now relying on References A and B. Applicant
elects to appeal without filing a response under Rule 116. While applicants
are encouraged to file a response under Rule 116 to possibly avoid an
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 57 |
appeal all together, at the present time there is no requirement for an
applicant to file a Rule 116 response as a condition to taking an appeal
to the Board. Whether such a requirement should be made in the future will
be held in abeyance pending experience under the rules. The Board has
found that many arguments made in an appeal brief were never earlier
presented to the examiner even though they could have been presented
(without filing a Rule 116 response). To promote clarity, Bd.R.
41.37(o) also requires that each rejection for which review is sought
shall be separately argued under a separate heading. Also, Bd.R.
41.37(o) provides that any finding made or conclusion reached by the
examiner that is not challenged would be presumed to be correct.
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1) provides that when a ground of rejection applies
to two or more claims, the claims may be argued separately (claims are
considered by appellant as separately patentable) or as a group (claims
stand or fall together). When two or more claims subject to the same
ground of rejection are argued as a group, the Board may select a
single claim from the group of claims that are argued together and
decide the appeal on the basis of the selected claim alone with respect
to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection. Any doubt as to
whether an election has been made would be resolved against the
appellant and the claims would be deemed to have been argued as a
group.
For each claim argued separately, a subheading identifying the
claim by number would be required. The requirement for a separate
subheading in the appeal brief is to minimize any chance the examiner
or the Board will overlook an argument directed to the separate
patentability of a particular claim. In the past, appellants have been
confused about whether a statement of what a claim covers is sufficient
to constitute an argument that the claim is separately patentable. It
is not. A statement that a claim contains a limitation not present in
another claim would not in and of itself be sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1) that a separate argument be made.
Unless an appellant plans to argue the separate patentability of a
claim, the appellant should not discuss or refer to the claim in the
argument section of the appeal brief. A copy of the claims will be
before the Board in the "claims section" (Bd.R. 41.37(p)). In an
application containing claims 1-3 where the examiner has made (1) a
§ 102 rejection or (2) a § 103 rejection or (3) both a § 102
and § 103 rejection, examples of a proper statement of "claims
standing or falling together" would be as follows: (1) "With respect
to the rejection under § 102, claims 1-3 stand or fall together."
(2) "With respect to the rejection under § 103, claims 1-2 stand
or fall together; claim 3 is believed to be separately patentable."
(3) "With respect to the rejection under § 102, claims 1-2 stand
or fall together; claim 3 is believed to be separately patentable. With
respect to the rejection under § 103, the claims stand or fall
together."
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(2) provides that the Board would only consider
arguments that (1) are presented in the argument section of the appeal
brief and (2) address claims set out in the claim support and drawing
analysis section in the appendix. Appellant would waive all arguments
which could have been, but were not, addressed in the argument section
of the appeal brief. A first example would be where Argument 1 and
Argument 2 are presented in response to a final rejection, but only
Argument 1 is presented in the appeal brief. Only Argument 1 would be
considered. Argument 2 would be waived. A second example would be where
an applicant presents an affidavit under Rule 131 or Rule 132 to the
examiner, but does not rely on the affidavit in the argument section of
the appeal brief. The Board would not consider the affidavit in
deciding the appeal.
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3) requires that when responding to points made in
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 58 |
the final rejection, the appeal brief shall specifically (1) identify
each point made by the examiner and (2) indicate where appellant
previously responded to each point or state that appellant has not
previously responded to the point. In supporting any argument, the
appellant shall refer to a page and, where appropriate, a line or
paragraph, of the Record. Examples of argument formats that are
acceptable under Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3) follow.
Example 1. In the case where an argument had been previously
presented to the examiner, the following format is acceptable under
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3). "The examiner states that Reference A teaches
element B. Final Rejection mailed [insert date], page x, lines y-z.
In response, appellant previously pointed out to the examiner why
the examiner is believed to have erred. Amendment filed [enter
date], pages 8-9. The response is [concisely state the response]."
A similar format has been successfully used for some years in
oppositions and replies filed in interference cases.
Example 2. Alternatively, in the case where an argument has not
been previously made to the examiner, the following format would be
acceptable under Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3). "In response to the examiner's
reliance on Reference C for the first time in the final rejection
(page 4), appellant's response includes a new argument which has not
been previously presented to the examiner. The response is
[concisely state the response]." Use of this format will minimize
any chance that the examiner will overlook an argument when
preparing the examiner's answer.
Bd.R. 41.37(p) would require an appeal brief to contain a "claims
section" in the appendix which would consist of an accurate clean copy
in numerical order of all claims pending in the application or
reexamination proceeding on appeal. The claims section in the appendix
would include all pending claims, not just those under rejection. The
status of each claim would have to be indicated, (e.g., 1 (rejected),
2 (withdrawn), 3 (objected to), 4 (cancelled), and 5 (allowed)).
Bd.R. 41.37(q) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.37(r) requires an appeal brief to contain a "claim
support and drawing analysis section."
The claim support portion of Bd.R. 41.37(r) replaces Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v)
which required a concise explanation of the subject matter defined in
each of the independent claims on appeal. The claim support section,
for each independent claim involved in the appeal and each dependent claim
argued separately (see Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1)), would consist of an annotated
copy of the claim indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} )
after each limitation where, by page and line or paragraph numbers, the
limitation is described in the specification as filed. Braces ({ {time} )
are used instead of brackets ([ ]) because brackets are used in reissue
claim practice. Unlike the "claims section" (see Bd.R. 41.37(p)),
only those independent claims and dependent claims being argued separately,
would need to appear in the "claim support and drawing analysis section."
A significant objective of the claim support requirement is to provide the
examiner and the Board with appellant's perspective on where language of
the claims (including specific words used in the claims, but not in the
specification) finds support in the specification. Finding support for
language in the claims can help the examiner and the Board construe
claimed terminology and limitations when applying the prior art. The
claim support requirement will help the Board interpret the scope of
claims, or the meaning of words in a claim, before applying the prior art.
Practice under Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v) has not been efficient because of the
diverse manners in which different appellants have attempted to comply with
the current rule.
One significant problem faced by the Board under Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v)
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 59 |
occurs when the language of a claim does not have direct
antecedent language in the specification. In order for the Board to
understand the scope of a claim or the meaning of a term in the claim,
the Board primarily relies on the specification. Moreover, in practice
before the Office, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. However, when the language of the
claim does not find correspondence in the specification, as filed, often
it is difficult to determine the meaning of a particular word in a claim
or to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim
support requirement will give the examiner and the Board the appellant's
view on where the claim is supported by the application, as filed.
The requirement is expected to significantly improve the efficiency of the
Board's handling of appeals.
The "claims support and drawing analysis section" also requires
for each independent claim on appeal and each dependent claim argued
separately (see Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1)), that a drawing analysis consist of
an annotated copy of the claim in numerical sequence, indicating in
bold face between braces ({ {time} ) (the same braces used to identify
references to the specification) after each limitation where, by
reference or sequence residue number, each limitation is shown in the
drawing or sequence. A drawing analysis has been required in
interference cases since 1998 and has proven useful to the Board in
understanding claimed inventions described in applications and patents
involved in an interference. The drawing analysis requirement is
expected to be equally useful in ex parte appeals.
Bd.R. 41.37(s) requires an appeal brief to contain a "means or
step plus function analysis section." The means or step plus function
analysis section replaces the requirement of Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v)
relating to identification of structure, material or acts for means or
step plus function claim limitations contained in appealed claims.
Under Bd.R. 41.37(s), the means or step plus function analysis section
would include each independent claim and each dependent claim argued
separately (see Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1)) that contains a limitation that
appellant regards as a means or step plus function limitation in the
form permitted by the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112. Further, for
each such claim, a copy of the claim would be reproduced indicating in
bold face between braces ({ {time} ) the specific portions of the
specification and drawing that describe the structure material or acts
corresponding to each claimed function.
The Office is requiring a particular format for the means or step
plus function analysis section to avoid the confusion that arises from
the variety of ways appellants employ under current practice in
attempting to comply with the requirements of Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v). A
means or step plus function analysis essentially tracking Bd.R.
41.37(s) has been used in interference cases since 1998 and has been
helpful in determining the scope of claims involved.
Bd.R. 41.37(t) would require an appeal brief to contain an
"evidence section" in the appendix. The evidence section essentially
continues the practice under Rule 41.37(c)(1)(ix). The evidence section
would include (1) table of contents, (2) affidavits and declarations
upon which the appellant relied before the examiner, (3) other evidence
upon which the appellant relied before the examiner, and (4) evidence
relied upon by the appellant and admitted into the file pursuant to
Bd.R. 41.33(d).
Documents in the evidence appendix would not have to be reformatted
to comply with format requirements of the appeal brief. However, the
affidavits, declarations and evidence required by Bd.R 41.37(t) which
is otherwise mentioned in the appeal brief, but which does not appear
in the evidence section will not be considered. Rule 41.37(c)(1)(ix)
has a similar provision, but appellants have not attached the evidence
appendix required by that rule. Appellants will now be on notice of the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 60 |
consequence of failing to comply with Bd.R. 41.37(t).
If the examiner believes that other material should be included in
the evidence section, the examiner would be able to attach that
evidence to the examiner's answer. Pursuant to Bd.R. 41.37(v)(1), all
pages of an appeal brief or a reply brief (including appendices to
those briefs) will be consecutively numbered beginning with page 1.
Bd.R. 41.37(u) requires an appeal brief to contain a "related
cases section" in the appendix. The related cases section consists of
copies of orders and opinions required to be cited pursuant to Bd.R.
41.37(g).
Bd.R. 41.37(v) requires an appeal brief to be presented in a
particular format. The appeal brief would have to comply with the
format of Rule 52 as well as with other requirements set out in Bd.R.
41.37(v)(1), (2) and (4) through (6).
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(1) requires that the pages of an appeal brief,
including all sections in the appendix, be consecutively numbered using
Arabic numerals beginning with the first page of the appeal brief,
which would be numbered page 1. This practice would prevent (1) re-
starting numbering with each section in the appendix or (2) using Roman
numeral page numbers, e.g., I, II, V, etc., or page numbers with
letters, e.g., "a", "b", "c", "i", "ii", etc. If an appellant
chooses to number the lines, line numbering may be within the left
margin. Line numbering has been used for some time in interference
cases and has been found to be useful when making reference in
oppositions, replies, and opinions of the Board.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(2) would require that text in an appeal brief would
be double spaced except in headings, tables of contents, tables of
authorities, signature blocks and certificates of service. Block
quotations would be indented, but could be presented in double spaced
or space and a half format. Footnotes, which are discouraged, would be
double spaced.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(3) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(4) requires that the font size be 14 point,
including the font for block quotations and footnotes.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5) provides that an appeal brief may not exceed 30
pages, excluding any (1) statement of the real party in interest, (2)
statement of related cases, (3) jurisdictional statement, (4) table of
contents, (5) table of authorities, (6) status of amendments, (7)
signature block and (8) appendix. To give meaning to the 30-page
limitation, an appeal brief would not be permitted to incorporate by
reference arguments from other papers in the evidence appendices or
from any other source. The prohibition against incorporation by
reference is necessary to prevent an appellant from adding to the
length of an appeal brief. Cf. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865,
866-67 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[A]doption by reference amounts to a self-
help increase in the length of the appellate brief. * * *
[I]ncorporation [by reference] is a pointless imposition on the court's
time. A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather
than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.") (citation
omitted). A prohibition against incorporation by reference has been the
practice in interference cases since 1998 and has minimized the chance
that an argument is overlooked.
A request to exceed the 30-page limit would be made by petition
under Bd.R. 41.3 at least ten calendar days prior to the date an appeal
brief is due.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(6) requires a signature block which would identify
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 61 |
the appellant or appellant's representative, as appropriate, and a
mailing address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address.
Examiner's Answer
Bd.R. 41.39(a) provides that within such time and manner as may be
directed by the Director and if the examiner determines that the appeal
should go forward, the examiner shall enter an examiner's answer
responding to the appeal brief. The specific requirements of what would
be required in an examiner's answer would appear in the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure.
Bd.R. 41.39(b) provides that a new ground of rejection can no
longer be made in the examiner's answer.
Generally, a new ground of rejection in an Examiner's Answer occurs
when an applicant has not had a fair opportunity in the appeal brief to
react to the "thrust of the rejection" made in the final rejection.
In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976). Stated in slightly
different terms, a test for determining whether a rejection in the
Examiner's Answer is "new" vis-[agrave]-vis the rejection made in the
final rejection is whether the "basic thrust" of "rejection" in the
Examiner's Answer and the rejection made in the final rejection "are
different." In re Ansel, 852 F.2d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (non-
precedential). In re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 706 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
notes that "[w]here the board makes a decision advancing a position or
rationale new to the proceedings, an applicant must be afforded an
opportunity to respond to that position or rationale by submission of
contradicting evidence [or argument]." Whether a new ground of
rejection has been made in an Examiner's Answer is evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. See Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303 (CCPA did not find cited
precedent "controlling in view of the distinctive facts at bar"). An
applicant met with a new ground of rejection in an Examiner's Answer is
entitled to a response to meet the new ground, including an opportunity
to present new evidence, an amendment to claims or both. In Kronig,
there was no new ground of rejection where (1) the Examiner relied on
Hoechst, Holzrichter, Yasui and Swift patents and (2) the Board used
the same basis as the Examiner, and, without disagreeing with the
Examiner's approach, limited its discussion to the evidence contained
in Holzrichter, Yasui and Swift. 539 F.2d at 1303. On the other hand in
Ansel, a new ground of rejection occurred when (1) the Examiner relied
on Hodakowski and Bhatia, (2) the Board dismissed Bhatia as
superfluous, and (3) for the first time relied on a general and brief
description in Hodakowski as to what Hodakowski considered prior art.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491 (CCPA 1961), states that where a "rejection
is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to
term one reference primary and the other secondary" is a matter of
"no significance, but merely a matter of exposition" where the
relevant part of each can be found. 296 F.2d at 760. In re Kumar, 418
F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005), held that the Board erred in not treating
as a new ground of rejection an affirmance based on calculations made
by the Board in the first instance and where the Board declined to
consider evidence in a petition for rehearing. In In re Gately, 69 Fed.
Appx. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (non-precedential), the Board designated as
a new ground of rejection an affirmance based on calculations not
previously made. In a request for rehearing to the Board, Gately
elected to present only argument. On appeal to the Federal Circuit,
Gately urged that he be given a further opportunity on remand to
present contrary evidence. The Federal Circuit denied Gately's request,
noting that the Board had given Gately the very opportunity he was then
requesting, but that Gately had declined the opportunity before the
Board. Under the rules, an applicant does not have to file a Rule 116
response after a final rejection citing a new reference to meet a
limitation in a claim amended by the applicant in response to the first
Office action. If the response to the new reference is made for the
first time in the appeal brief, it would not be a new ground of
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 62 |
rejection in an Examiner's Answer if the Examiner relies on any part of
the record, or yet another reference, to meet the new argument made for
the first time in the appeal brief. Cf. In re Plockinger, 481 F.2d
1327, 1330-1332 (CCPA 1973) ("the Solicitor should be allowed to point
out to us the facts underlying Peras' concept of the index of basicity,
all of which were before the board, in order to rebut appellants'
contentions with regard thereto."). Appellants can avoid the
Plockinger scenario by filing a Rule 116 response after final
rejection. By not filing a Rule 116 response after final rejection, an
appellant runs a risk that it will be confronted for the first time in
the Examiner's Answer with new rationale in support of the rejection or
new evidence or both. The appellant would then have to elect whether to
proceed with the appeal or refile the application.
Reply Brief
Bd.R. 41.41(a) provides that an appellant may file a single reply
brief responding to the examiner's answer. On too many occasions,
appellants have filed a first reply brief and thereafter a second reply
brief. Only one reply brief is authorized under Bd.R. 41.41(a). A
second reply brief will not be considered.
Bd.R. 41.41(b) provides that the time for filing a reply brief
would be within two months of the date the examiner's answer is mailed.
Bd.R. 41.41(c) provides that a request for an extension of time
shall be presented as a petition under Bd.R. 41.3(a) and (c). A
decision on the petition shall be governed by Bd.R. 41.4(a) of this
part. The provisions of Rule 136(a) would no longer apply to extensions
of time to file a reply brief.
Bd.R. 41.41(d) provides that a reply brief shall be limited to
responding to points made in the examiner's answer. Except as otherwise
set out in the rules, the form and content of a reply brief would be
governed by the requirements for an appeal brief as set out in Bd.R.
41.37. A reply brief would not be able to exceed 20 pages, excluding
any (1) table of contents, (2) table of authorities, and (3) signature
block. A reply brief would be required to contain, under appropriate
headings and in the order indicated, the following items: (1) Table of
contents, (2) table of authorities, (3) statement of additional facts,
and (4) argument.
Bd.R. 41.41(e) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.41(f) would require a statement of additional facts that
appellant believes are necessary to respond to points raised in the
examiner's answer. When there is a statement of additional facts, and
the appellant has elected to number the facts in the appeal brief, any
numbering of facts in the reply brief should start with the number
following the last number in the appeal brief. For example, if Facts 1-
10 are set out in the appeal brief and a statement of additional facts
is required with a reply brief, the statement of additional facts in
the reply brief should start with Fact 11.
Bd.R. 41.41(g) requires that an argument made in the reply brief be
limited to responding to points made in the examiner's answer. Any
argument raised in a reply brief which is not responsive to a point made
in the examiner's answer will not be considered and will be treated as
waived. An example of an acceptable format for presenting an argument
in a reply brief (where there was no new ground of rejection in the
examiner's answer) might read as follows: First paragraph: "This is a
reply to the examiner's answer mailed [insert the date the answer was
mailed]." Last paragraph: "For the reasons given in this reply brief and
in the appeal brief, reversal of the examiner's rejection is requested."
All paragraphs between the first and last paragraphs should read:
"On page x, lines y-z of the examiner's answer, the examiner states that
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 63 |
[state what the examiner states]. The response is [concisely state the
response]." As part of each response, the appellant should refer to the
page number and line or paragraph and drawing element number of any
document relied upon to support the response. Frequently, new details and
arguments surface in reply briefs. Bd.R. 41.41(g) seeks to confine reply
briefs to what they ought to be - a response to points raised in the
examiner's answer. If it turns out that too many resources of the Office
are needed to enforce the reply brief rule and considerable time is
wasted in resolving improper reply brief issues, consideration may be
given to further limiting the nature of replies filed in ex parte appeals.
Bd.R. 41.41(h) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.41(i) provides that an amendment or new evidence may not
accompany a reply brief. The Office has found that appellants continue
to attempt to file amendments and evidence with reply briefs. If an
appellant, after reviewing the examiner's answer, believes that an
amendment is appropriate, the appellant may file a continuing
application or a request for continued examination or, in the case of a
reexamination proceeding, ask that the proceeding be reopened.
Examiner's Response to Reply Brief
Bd.R. 41.43 is reserved. An examiner will no longer be responding
to a reply brief.
Supplemental Reply Brief
Bd.R. 41.44 is reserved. A supplemental reply brief is no longer
authorized because the examiner will no longer be filing a response to
a reply brief.
Oral Hearing
Bd.R. 41.47(a) provides that if the appellant desires an oral
hearing, appellant must file, as a separate paper, a written request
captioned: "REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING."
Bd.R. 41.47(b) provides that a request for oral hearing shall be
accompanied by the fee required by § 41.20(b)(3).
Bd.R. 41.47(c) provides that the time for filing a request for an
oral hearing would be within two months from the date the examiner's
answer is mailed.
Bd.R. 41.47(d) provides that a request for an extension of time to
request an oral hearing would have to be presented as a petition as
specified in Bd.R. 41.3(a) and (c). A decision on the petition shall be
governed by Bd.R. 41.4(a).
Bd.R. 41.47(e) provides that if an oral hearing is properly
requested, a date for the oral hearing would be set.
Bd.R. 41.47(f) provides that if an oral hearing is set, then within
such time as the Board may order, appellant shall confirm attendance at
the oral hearing. Failure to timely confirm attendance would be taken
as a waiver of any request for an oral hearing.
Bd.R. 41.47(g) provides that at the time appellant confirms
attendance at the oral hearing, appellant would be required to supply a
list of technical terms and other unusual words which can be provided
to any individual transcribing an oral hearing. The current practice of
the Board is to transcribe all oral arguments. A list of technical
terms provided by appellant should improve the accuracy of any
transcript.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 64 |
Bd.R. 41.47(h) provides that unless otherwise ordered by the Board,
argument on behalf of appellant at an oral hearing would be limited to
20 minutes.
Bd.R. 41.47(i) provides that at oral hearing only the Record will
be considered. No additional evidence may be offered to the Board in
support of the appeal. Any argument not presented in a brief cannot be
made at the oral hearing.
Bd.R. 41.47(j) provides that notwithstanding Bd.R. 41.47(i), an
appellant could rely on and call the Board's attention to a recent
court or Board opinion which could have an effect on the manner in
which the appeal is decided.
Bd.R. 41.47(k) provides that visual aids may be used at an oral
hearing. However, visual aids must be limited to copies of documents or
artifacts in the Record or a model or exhibit presented for
demonstration purposes during an interview with the examiner. When an
appellant seeks to use a visual aid, one copy of each visual aid
(photograph in the case of an artifact, a model or an exhibit) should
be provided for each judge and one copy to be added to the Record.
Bd.R. 41.47(l) provides that failure of an appellant to attend an
oral hearing would be treated as a waiver of the oral hearing. Over the
years, the Board has become concerned with the large number of requests
for postponements. In some cases, multiple requests in a single appeal
are submitted for postponement of an oral hearing. Apart from the fact
that a postponement can lead to large patent term adjustments,
efficiency dictates that the Board be able to set an oral hearing
schedule with an expectation that in a large majority of the cases the
oral hearing will timely occur or the appellant will waive oral
hearing. The Board will continue to handle requests for postponement of
oral hearings on an ad hoc basis. However, postponements would no
longer be granted on a routine basis. A request for a postponement made
immediately after a notice of oral hearing is mailed is more likely to
receive favorable treatment, particularly since it may be possible to
set an oral hearing date prior to the originally scheduled oral hearing
date.
Decisions and Other Actions by the Board
Bd.R. 41.50(a) provides that the Board may affirm or reverse a
decision of the examiner in whole or in part on the grounds and on the
claims specified by the examiner. Bd.R. 41.50(a) continues a long-
standing practice that an affirmance of a rejection of a claim on any
of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the
decision of the examiner on that claim, except as to any ground
specifically reversed.
Bd.R. 41.50(b) provides that the Board may remand an application to
the examiner. Upon entry of a remand, the Board would no longer have
jurisdiction unless an appellant timely files a request for rehearing.
If the request for rehearing does not result in modification of the
remand, the Board would then lose jurisdiction. Upon remand, should the
examiner enter an examiner's answer in response to the remand,
appellant would be required to exercise one of two options to avoid
abandonment of the application or termination of the reexamination
proceeding. Either option would have to be exercised within two months
from the date of any examiner's answer mailed in response to the
remand.
Bd.R. 41.50(b)(1) specifies a first option and provides that
appellant could request that prosecution be reopened before the
examiner by filing a reply under Rule 111, with or without amendment or
submission of evidence. Any amendment or evidence would have to be
relevant to the issues set forth in the remand or raised in any examiner's
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 65 |
answer mailed in response to the remand. A request that complies with
this paragraph would be entered and the application or patent under
reexamination would be reconsidered by the examiner under the provisions
of Rule 112. A request under Bd.R. 41.50(b)(1) would be treated as a
request to dismiss the appeal.
Bd.R. 41.50(b)(2) specifies a second option and provides that
appellant could request that the appeal be re-docketed. The request
would have to be accompanied by a reply brief as set forth in Bd.R.
41.41. An amendment or evidence could not accompany the reply brief. A
reply brief that is accompanied by an amendment or evidence would be
treated as a request to reopen prosecution pursuant to Bd.R.
41.50(b)(1).
Bd.R. 41.50(c) provides that a remand is not a final decision.
Following proceedings on remand, and with respect to affirmed
rejections and claims not involved in the remand, an appellant could
request the Board to enter a final decision so that the appellant could
then seek judicial review as to those rejections and claims. Only a
final decision of the Board is subject to judicial review. Copelands'
Enter., Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 887 F.2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc).
Bd.R. 41.50(d) provides that, should the Board have knowledge of a
basis not involved in the appeal for rejecting a pending claim, the
Board may enter a new ground of rejection. The pending claim could be a
claim not rejected by the examiner. A new ground of rejection would not
be considered final for purposes of judicial review. A new ground of
rejection is not considered a final agency action because the appellant
has not explained to the Board, without amendment or new evidence, or
to the Office, with an amendment or new evidence or both, why the
rejection is not proper. Bd.R. 41.50(d) places an appellant under a
burden to explain to the Board or the Office why a new ground of
rejection is not proper before it burdens a court with judicial review.
A response by an appellant may convince the Office that a new ground of
rejection should be withdrawn. If the Board enters a new ground of
rejection, appellant would have to exercise one of two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid dismissal of the appeal
as to any claim subject to the new ground of rejection. Either option
would have to be exercised within two months from the date of the new
ground of rejection.
Bd.R. 41.50(d)(1) specifies that a first option would be to submit
an amendment of the claims subject to a new ground of rejection or new
evidence relating to the new ground of rejection or both and request
that the matter be reconsidered by the examiner. The proceedings would
be remanded to the examiner. A new ground of rejection would be binding
on the examiner unless, in the opinion of the examiner, the amendment
or new evidence overcomes the new ground of rejection. In the event the
examiner maintains the rejection, appellant would be able to again
appeal to the Board.
Bd.R. 41.50(d)(2) specifies that a second option would be to
request rehearing pursuant to Bd.R. 41.52. The request for rehearing
would have to be based on the record before the Board and no new
evidence or amendments would be permitted.
Bd.R. 41.50(e) continues a long-standing practice that the Board,
in its opinion in support of its decision, could include a
recommendation, explicitly designated as such, of how a claim on appeal
may be amended to overcome a specific rejection. For the recommendation
to be binding, it would have to be explicitly designated as a
recommendation. For example, a conclusion or comment by the Board that
a claim, notwithstanding appellant's argument, is so broad as to read
on the prior art should not be taken as a recommendation that if some
undefined limitation is added the claim would be patentable. When the
Board makes a recommendation, appellant may file an amendment in
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 66 |
conformity with the recommendation. An amendment in conformity with the
recommendation would be deemed to overcome the specific rejection. An
examiner would have authority to enter a rejection of a claim amended
in conformity with a recommendation provided that the additional
rejection constitutes a new ground of rejection. For example, the
examiner may know of additional prior art not known to the Board that
would meet the claim as amended. It is because of the possibility that
an examiner may know of additional prior art that a recommendation
would be expected to be a relatively rare event.
Bd.R. 41.50(f) provides that the Board could enter an order
requiring appellant to brief additional issues or supply additional
evidence or both if the Board believes doing so would be of assistance
in reaching a decision on the appeal. Bd.R. 41.50(f) continues a
practice which has been in existence since 1999. See, e.g., (1) 37 CFR
1.196(d) (1999) and (2) Rule 41.50(d). Practice under Rule 41.50(d) has
been highly useful and complements the authority of Office personnel to
request additional material under Rule 105. Appellant would be given a
non-extendable time period within which to respond to the order. In
setting the length of the non-extendable time period, the Board would
take into account the extent of the information requested and the time
of year a response would be due. For example, it is not likely that the
Board would set a date for response between Christmas Day and New
Year's Day. Failure of appellant to timely respond to the order could
result in dismissal of the appeal in whole or in part. An appeal might
be dismissed-in-part if the order sought further briefing or evidence
or both related to one rejection but not another rejection,
particularly where the two rejections apply to different claims.
Bd.R. 41.50(g) provides for extensions of time to respond to
actions of the Board under Bd.R. 41.50(b) and (d). Bd.R. 41.50(g)
provides that a request for an extension of time to respond to a
request for briefing and information under Bd.R. 41.50(f) is not
authorized. A request for an extension of time to respond to Board
action under Bd.R. 41.50(b) and (d) would be presented as a petition
under Bd.R. 41.3(a) and (c). A decision on the petition shall be
governed by Bd.R. 41.4(a).
Rehearing
Bd.R. 41.52(a) authorizes an appellant to file a single request for
rehearing. In the past, appellants have filed a second request for
rehearing, in effect supplementing a first request for rehearing.
Filing a second or subsequent request for rehearing is not authorized.
Any second or subsequent request for rehearing will not be considered.
Bd.R. 41.52(b) provides that a request for rehearing is due within
two months from the date the decision by the Board is mailed.
Bd.R. 41.52(c) provides that a request for an extension of time
would have to be presented as a petition under Bd.R. 41.3(a) and (c). A
decision on the petition would be governed by Bd.R. 41.4(a).
Bd.R. 41.52(d) provides that the form of a request for rehearing is
governed by Bd.R. 41.37(v) except that a request for rehearing could
not exceed 10 pages, excluding any table of contents, table of
authorities, and signature block. A request for rehearing would have to
contain, under appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the
following items: (1) Table of contents, (2) table of authorities, and
(3) argument.
Bd.R. 41.52(e) is reserved.
Bd.R. 41.52(f) provides that a request for rehearing shall state
with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended
or overlooked by the Board. In filing a request for
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 67 |
rehearing, the argument shall adhere to the following format: "On page
x, lines y-z of the Board's opinion, the Board states that [set out
what was stated]. The point misapprehended or overlooked was made to
the Board in [identify paper, page and line where argument was made to
the Board]. The response is [state response]." As part of each
response, appellant shall refer to the page number and line or drawing
element number of the Record. A general restatement of the case will
not be considered an argument that the Board misapprehended or
overlooked a point. A new argument cannot be made in a request for
rehearing, except in two instances.
Bd.R. 41.52(f)(1) would authorize in a first instance an appellant
to respond to a new ground of rejection entered pursuant to Bd.R.
41.50(d)(2).
Bd.R. 41.52(f)(2) would authorize an appellant to rely on and call
the Board's attention to a recent decision of a court or the Board that
is relevant to an issue decided in the appeal. Generally, the recent
court decision would be a decision of the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Bd.R. 41.52(g) provides that an amendment or new evidence could not
accompany a request for rehearing.
Bd.R. 41.52(h) provides that a decision will be rendered on a
request for rehearing. The decision on rehearing would be deemed to
incorporate the decision sought to be reheard except for those portions
of the decision sought to be reheard specifically modified on
rehearing. A decision on rehearing would be considered final for
purposes of judicial review, except when otherwise noted in the
decision on rehearing.
Action Following Decision
Bd.R. 41.54 provides that, after a decision by the Board and
subject to appellant's right to seek judicial review, the proceeding
will be returned to the examiner for such further action as may be
consistent with the decision by the Board.
Sanctions
Bd.R. 41.56 is new and provides for sanctions. The rule is designed
to put the public on notice of actions which the Office believes are
detrimental to the efficient handling of ex parte appeals.
Bd.R. 41.56(a) provides that the Chief Administrative Patent Judge
or an expanded panel of the Board may impose a sanction against an
appellant for misconduct. Misconduct would include (1) failure to
comply with an order entered in the appeal or an applicable rule, (2)
advancing or maintaining a misleading or frivolous request for relief
or argument or (3) engaging in dilatory tactics. A sanction would be
entered by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge (for matters not
before a panel) or an expanded panel of the Board (for matters before a
panel). A sanction would be applied against the appellant, not against
a registered practitioner. Conduct of a registered practitioner could
result in a sanction against an appellant. Conduct of a registered
practitioner believed to be inappropriate would be referred to the
Office of Enrollment and Discipline for such action as may be
appropriate.
Bd.R. 41.56(b) provides that the nature of possible sanctions
includes entry of (a) an order declining to enter a docket notice, (b)
an order holding certain facts to have been established in the appeal,
(c) an order expunging a paper or precluding an appellant from filing a
paper, (d) an order precluding an appellant from presenting or
contesting a particular issue, (e) an order excluding evidence, (f) an
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 68 |
order holding an application on appeal to be abandoned or a
reexamination proceeding terminated, (g) an order dismissing an appeal,
(h) an order denying an oral hearing or (i) an order terminating an
oral hearing.
Whether and what sanction, if any, should be imposed against an
appellant in any specific circumstance would be a discretionary action.
Changes Made to Rules as Proposed
Several changes have been made to the rules as proposed in the
notice of proposed rulemaking. Those changes follow with additions
shown in [brackets] and deletions shown in {braces{time} . Only the
paragraph of a rule where a change was made is reproduced.
Petitions (§ 41.3)
§ 41.3(a), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Deciding official. A petition authorized by this part must be
addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. {In addition to
complying with all other requirements of this title, a copy of the
petition must also be forwarded to the Office addressed to: Chief
Administrative Patent Judge, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
VA 22313-1450.{time} The Chief Administrative Patent Judge may
delegate authority to decide petitions.
Timeliness (§ 41.4)
§ 41.4(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Late filings. (1) A request to revive an application which becomes
abandoned or a reexamination proceeding which becomes terminated under
§§ 1.550(d) or 1.957(b) or (c) of this title as a result of a
late filing may be filed pursuant to § 1.137 of this title.
(2) A late filing that does not result in an application becoming
abandoned or a reexamination proceeding becoming terminated under
§§ 1.550(d) or 1.957(b) or [limited under § 1.957] (c) of
this title may be excused upon a showing of excusable neglect or a
Board determination that consideration on the merits would be in the
interests of justice.
Citation of Authority (§ 41.12)
§ 41.12 (a), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Authority. Citations to authority must include:
(1) United States Supreme Court decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: United States Reports,
West's Supreme Court Reports, United States Patents Quarterly, Westlaw,
or a slip opinion.
(2) United States Court of Appeals decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: West's Federal Reporter (F.,
F.2d or F.3d), West's Federal Appendix (Fed. Appx.), United States
Patents Quarterly, Westlaw, or a slip opinion.
(3) United States District Court decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: West's Federal Supplement
(F.Supp., F.Supp. 2d), United States Patents Quarterly, Westlaw, or a
slip opinion.
(4) Slip opinions. If a slip opinion is relied upon, a copy of the
slip opinion must accompany the first paper in which an authority is
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 69 |
cited.
(5) Pinpoint citations. Use pinpoint citations whenever a specific
holding or portion of an authority is invoked.
§ 41.12(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Non-binding authority. Non-binding authority may be cited. If non-
binding authority is not an authority of the Office and is not
reproduced in one of the reporters listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, a copy of the authority shall be filed with the first paper in
which it is cited.]
Definitions (§ 41.30)
§ 41.30, as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[Record means the official content of the file of an application or
reexamination proceeding an appeal.] {Record on appeal. The record on
appeal consists of the specification, drawings, if any, U.S. patents
cited by the examiner or appellant, published U.S. applications cited
by the examiner or appellant, the appeal brief, including all
appendices, the examiner's answer, any reply brief, including any
supplemental appendix, any supplemental examiner's answer, any
supplemental reply brief, any request for rehearing, any order or
decision entered by the Board or the Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
and any other document or evidence which was considered by the Board as
indicated in any opinion accompanying any order or decision.{time}
Appeal to Board (§ 41.31)
§ 41.31(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Non-appealable issues. A non-appealable issue is an issue not
subject to an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134. An applicant or patent owner
dissatisfied with a decision of an examiner on a non-appealable issue
shall timely seek review by petition before jurisdiction over an appeal
is transferred to the Board (see § 41.35). Failure to timely file a
petition seeking review of a decision of the examiner related to a non-
appealable issue may constitute a waiver to [having] {have{time} that
issue considered [in the application or reexamination on appeal].
Amendments and Evidence After Appeal (§ 41.33)
§ 41.33(c), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Other amendments. No other amendments filed after the date an
appeal brief is filed will be admitted, except as permitted by
§§ {41.39(b)(1),{time} 41.50(b)(1), 41.50(d)(1) or 41.50(e) of
this subpart.
§ 41.33(d), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Evidence after notice of appeal and prior to appeal brief. Evidence
filed after the date a notice of appeal is filed and prior to the date
an appeal brief is filed may be admitted if:
[(1)] the examiner determines that the evidence overcomes [at least
one rejection] {some or all rejections{time} under appeal [and does
not necessitate any new ground of rejection], and
[(2)] appellant shows good cause why the evidence was not earlier
presented. § 41.33(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Other evidence. All other evidence filed after the date an appeal
brief is filed will not be admitted, except as permitted by
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 70 |
§§ {41.39(b)(1),{time} 41.50(b)(1) or 41.50(d)(1) of this subpart.
Jurisdiction Over Appeal (§ 41.35)
§ 41.35(a), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Beginning of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board begins
when a docket notice is [mailed] {entered{time} by the Board.
§ 41.35(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
End of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board ends when[:
(1) The Board mails a remand order (see § 41.50(b) or § 41.50(d)(1)
of this subpart),
(2) The Board mails a final decision (see § 41.2 of this part)
and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking judicial review
has expired,
(3) An express abandonment is filed which complies with § 1.138
of this title, or
(4) A request for continued reexamination is filed which complies
with § 1.114 of this title.] {the Board orders a remand (see § 41.50(b)
or § 41.50(d)(1) of this subpart) or enters a final decision (see § 41.2
of this subpart) and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking
judicial review has expired.{time}
Appeal Brief (§ 41.37)
§ 41.37(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Content of appeal brief. The appeal brief must contain, under
appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Statement of the real party in interest [(see paragraph (f) of
this section)].
(2) Statement of related cases [(see paragraph (g) of this section)].
(3) Jurisdictional statement [(see paragraph (h) of this section)].
(4) Table of contents [(see paragraph (i) of this section)].
(5) Table of authorities [(see paragraph (j) of this section)].
(6) [[Reserved.]] {Status of claims.{time}
(7) Status of amendments [(see paragraph (l) of this section)].
(8) [Grounds of rejection] {Rejections{time} to be reviewed (see
paragraph (m) of this section)].
(9) Statement of facts [(see paragraph (n) of this section)].
(10) Argument [(see paragraph (o) of this section)].
(11) An appendix containing a claims section [(see paragraph (p) of
this section)], [a claim support and drawing analysis section (see
paragraph (r) of this section)], {a claim support section, a drawing
analysis section,{time} a means or step plus function analysis section
[(see paragraph (s) of this section)], an evidence section [(see
paragraph (t) of this section)], and a related cases section [(see
paragraph (u) of this section)].
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 71 |
§ 41.37(f), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Statement of real party in interest. The "statement of the real
party in interest" shall identify the name of the real party in
interest. The real party in interest must be identified in such a
manner as to readily permit a member of the Board to determine whether
recusal would be appropriate. Appellant is under a continuing
obligation to update this item during the pendency of the appeal. [If
an appeal brief does not contain a statement of real party in interest,
the Office will assume that the named inventors are the real party in
interest.]
§ 41.37(g), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Statement of related cases. The "statement of related cases"
shall identify, by application, patent, appeal, interference, or court
docket number, all prior or pending appeals, interferences or judicial
proceedings, known to [any inventors, any attorneys or agents who
prepared or prosecuted the application on appeal and any other person
who was substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the
application on appeal,] {appellant, appellant's legal representative or
any assignee,{time} and that are related to, directly affect, or would
be directly affected by, or have a bearing on the Board's decision in
the appeal. [A related case includes any continuing application of the
application on appeal.] A copy of any final or significant
interlocutory decision rendered by the Board or a court in any
proceeding identified under this paragraph shall be included in the
related cases section [(see paragraph (u) of this section) in]
{of{time} the appendix. Appellant is under a continuing obligation to
update this item during the pendency of the appeal. [If an appeal brief
does not contain a statement of related cases, the Office will assume
that there are no related cases.]
§ 41.37(h), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Jurisdictional statement. The "jurisdictional statement" shall
establish the jurisdiction of the Board to consider the appeal. The
jurisdictional statement shall include a statement of the statute under
which the appeal is taken, [the date of the Office action setting out
the rejection on appeal from which the appeal is taken,] {the date of
the decision from which the appeal is taken,{time} the date the notice
of appeal was filed, and the date the appeal brief is being filed. If a
notice of appeal or an appeal brief is filed after the time specified
in this subpart, appellant must also indicate the date an extension of
time was requested and, if known, the date the request was granted.
§ 41.37(i), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Table of contents. A "table of contents" shall list, along with a
reference to the page where each item begins, the items required to be
listed in the appeal brief (see paragraph (e) of this section)
[or]{,{time} reply brief (see § 41.41(d) of this subpart) {or
supplemental reply brief (see § 41.44(d) of this subpart){time} ,
as appropriate.
§ 41.37(j), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Table of authorities. A "table of authorities" shall list cases
(alphabetically arranged), statutes and other authorities along with a
reference to the pages where each authority is cited in the appeal
brief [or]{,{time} reply brief, {or supplemental reply brief,{time}
as appropriate. § 41.37(k), as proposed, would be revised as
follows:
[[Reserved.]] {Status of pending claims. The "status of pending
claims" shall include a statement of the status of all pending claims
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 72 |
(e.g., rejected, allowed, cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or
objected to).{time}
§ 41.37(m), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[Grounds of rejection] {Rejections{time} to be reviewed. The
"[grounds of rejection] {rejections{time} to be reviewed" shall set
out the [grounds of rejection] {rejections{time} to be reviewed,
including the [statute applied, the claims subject to each rejection
and references relied upon by the examiner] {claims subject to each
rejection{time}.
§ 41.37(n), proposed, would be revised as follows:
Statement of facts. The "statement of facts" shall set out in an
objective and non-argumentative manner the material facts relevant to
the rejections on appeal. A fact shall be supported by a reference to a
specific page number [of a document in the Record] and, where
applicable, a specific line or [paragraph, and] drawing numerals {of
the record on appeal{time} . A general reference to a document as a
whole or to large portions of a document does not comply with the
requirements of this paragraph.
§ 41.37(o), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Argument. The "argument" shall explain why the examiner {is
believed to have{time} erred as to each [ground of] rejection to be
reviewed. Any explanation must address all points made by the examiner
with which the appellant disagrees. Any finding made or conclusion
reached by the examiner that is not challenged will be presumed to be
correct. For each argument, an explanation {and{time} must identify
where the argument was made in the first instance to the examiner or
state that the argument has not previously been made to the examiner.
{Any finding made or conclusion reached by the examiner that is not
challenged will be presumed to be correct.{time} Each [ground of]
rejection shall be separately argued under a separate heading. {For
arguments traversing a rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 or 112,
see also paragraphs (o)(4) through (o)(7) of this section. For
arguments traversing other rejections, see also paragraph (o)(8) of
this section.{time}
(1) Claims standing or falling together. [For each ground of
rejection applicable to two or more claims, the claims may be argued
separately (claims are considered by appellants as separately
patentable) or as a group (claims stand or fall together). When two or
more claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a
group, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims
that are argued together to decide the appeal on the basis of the
selected claim alone with respect to the group of claims as to the
ground of rejection. Any doubt as to whether claims have been argued
separately or as a group as to a ground of rejection will be resolved
against appellant and the claims will be deemed to have been argued as
a group. Any claim argued separately as to a ground of rejection shall
be placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number.]{When a
rejection applies to two or more claims, as to that rejection, the
appellant may elect to have all claims stand or fall together, or argue
the separate patentability of individual claims. If the appeal brief
fails to make an explicit election, the Board will treat all claims
subject to a rejection as standing or falling together, and select a
single claim to decide the appeal as to that rejection. Any doubt as to
whether an election has been made or whether an election is clear will
be resolved against the appellant. Any claim argued separately shall be
placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number.{time} A
statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 73 |
(2) Arguments considered. Only those arguments which are presented
in the argument section of the appeal brief and that address claims set
out in the claim support [and drawing analysis] section of the appendix
will be considered. Appellant waives all other arguments [in the
appeal].
(3) Format of argument. Unless a response is purely legal in
nature, when responding to a point made in the examiner's rejection,
the appeal brief shall specifically identify the point made by the
examiner and indicate where appellant previously responded to the point
or state that appellant has not previously responded to the point. In
identifying any point made by the examiner, the appellant shall refer
to a page and, where appropriate, a line [or paragraph], of [a document
in] the [Record]{record on appeal{time}.
{(4) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. For each
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the argument shall also
specify the errors in the rejection and how the rejected claims comply
with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 including, as appropriate,
how the specification and drawings, if any, describe the subject matter
defined by the rejected claims, enable any person skilled in the art to
which the invention pertains to make and use the subject matter of the
rejected claims, or set forth the best mode contemplated by the
inventor of carrying out the claimed invention.{time}
{(5) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For each
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the argument shall
also specify how the rejected claims particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant regards as the
invention.{time}
{(6) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. For each rejection under 35
U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), the argument shall also specify why the
rejected claims are patentable by identifying any specific limitation
in the rejected claims which is not described in the prior art relied
upon in support of the rejection.{time}
{(7) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. For each rejection under 35
U.S.C. 103, if appropriate, the argument shall specify the errors in
the rejection and, if appropriate, specify the specific limitations in
the rejected claims that are not described in the prior art relied upon
in support of the rejection, and explain how those limitations render
the claimed subject matter unobvious over the prior art. A general
argument that all limitations are not described in a single prior art
reference does not satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.{time}
{(8) Other rejections. For each rejection other than those referred
to in paragraphs (o)(4) through (o)(7), the argument shall specify the
errors in the rejection, including where appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims upon which the appellant relies to
establish error.{time}
§ 41.37(p), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Claims section. The "claims section" of the appendix shall
consist of an accurate clean copy in numerical order of all claims
pending in the application or reexamination proceeding on appeal. The
status of [every]{each{time} claim shall be set out after the claim
number and in parentheses (e.g., 1 (rejected), 2 (withdrawn), 3
(objected to), [4 (cancelled), and 5 (allowed)]). {and 4
(allowed)).{time} [A cancelled claim need not be reproduced.]
§ 41.37(q), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[[Reserved.]] {Claim support section. For each claim argued
separately (see paragraph (o)(1) of this section), the "claim support
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 74 |
section" of the appendix shall consist of an annotated copy of the
claim indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} ) the page and
line after each limitation where the limitation is described in the
specification as filed.{time}
§ 41.37(r), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[Claim support and] drawing analysis section. [For each independent
claim involved in the appeal and each dependent claim argued separately
(see paragraph (o)(1) of this section), the claim support and drawing
analysis section in the appendix shall consist of an annotated copy of
the claim (and, if necessary, any claim from which the claim argued
separately depends) indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} )
the page and line or paragraph after each limitation where the
limitation is described in the specification as filed. If there is a
drawing or amino acid or nucleotide material sequence, and at least one
limitation is illustrated in a drawing or amino acid or nucleotide
material sequence, the "claims support and drawing analysis section"
in the appendix shall also contain in bold face between the same braces
({ {time} ) where each limitation is shown in the drawings or
sequence.] {For each claim argued separately (see paragraph (o)(1) of
this section) and having at least one limitation illustrated in a
drawing or amino acid or nucleotide material sequence, the "drawing
analysis section" of the appendix shall consist of an annotated copy
of the claim indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} ) where
each limitation is shown in the drawings or sequence. If there is no
drawing or sequence, the drawing analysis section shall state that
there is no drawing or sequence.{time}
§ 41.37(s), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Means or step plus function analysis section. [For each independent
claim involved in the appeal and each dependent claim argued separately
(see paragraph (o)(1) of this section) having a limitation that
appellant regards as a means or step plus function limitation in the
form permitted by the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, for each such
limitation, the "means or step plus function analysis section" in the
appendix shall consist of an annotated copy of the claim (and, if
necessary, any claim from which the claim argued separately depends)
indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} ) the page and line of
the specification and the drawing figure and element numeral that
describes the structure, material or acts corresponding to each claimed
function.] {For each claim argued separately (see paragraph (o)(1) of
this section) and for each limitation that appellant regards as a means
or step plus function limitation in the form permitted by the sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, the "means or step plus function analysis
section" of the appendix shall consist of an annotated copy of the
claim indicating in bold face between braces ({ {time} ) the page and
line of the specification and the drawing figure and element numeral
that describes the structure, material or acts corresponding to each
claimed function. If there is no means or step plus function
limitation, the means or step plus function analysis section shall
state that there are no means or step plus function limitations in the
claims to be considered.{time}
§ 41.37(t), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Evidence section. The "evidence section" shall contain only
papers which have been entered by the examiner. The evidence section
shall include:
(1) A table of contents.
(2) [[Reserved.]] {The Office action setting out the rejection on
appeal. If the Office action incorporates by reference any other Office
action, then the Office action incorporated by reference shall also
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 75 |
appear in the evidence section.{time}
(3) [[Reserved.]] {All evidence relied upon by the examiner in
support of the rejection on appeal (including non-patent literature and
foreign application and patent documents), except the specification,
any drawings, U.S. patents or published U.S. applications.{time}
(4) [[Reserved.]] {The relevant portion of a paper filed by the
appellant before the examiner which shows that an argument being made
on appeal was made in the first instance to the examiner.{time}
(5) [Affidavits and declarations.] Affidavits and declarations, if
any, and attachments to declarations, [before the examiner and which
are relied upon by appellant in the appeal. An affidavit or declaration
otherwise mentioned in the appeal brief which does not appear in the
evidence section will not be considered.] {relied upon by appellant
before the examiner.{time}
(6) [Other evidence filed prior to the notice of appeal.] Other
evidence, if any, [before the examiner and filed prior to the date of
the notice of appeal and relied upon by appellant in the appeal. Other
evidence filed before the notice of appeal that is otherwise mentioned
in the appeal brief and which does not appear in the evidence section
will not be considered.] {relied upon by the appellant before the
examiner.{time}
[(7) Other evidence filed after the notice of appeal. Other
evidence relied upon by the appellant in the appeal and admitted into
the file pursuant to § 41.33(d) of this subpart. Other evidence
filed after the notice of appeal that is otherwise mentioned in the
appeal brief and which does not appear in the evidence section will not
be considered.]
§ 41.37(v), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Appeal brief format requirements. An appeal brief shall comply with
§ 1.52 of this title and the following additional requirements:
(1) Page and line numbering. The pages of the appeal brief,
including all sections [in] {of{time} the appendix, shall be
consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals beginning with the first
page of the appeal brief, which shall be numbered page 1. [If the
appellant chooses to number the lines, line numbering may be within the
left margin.] {The lines on each page of the appeal brief and, where
practical, the appendix shall be consecutively numbered beginning with
line 1 at the top of each page.{time}
(2) Double spacing. Double spacing shall be used except in
headings, tables of contents, tables of authorities, [signature blocks
and certificates of service.] {and signature blocks.{time} Block
quotations must be {double spaced and{time} indented [and can be one
and one half or double spaced].
(3) [[Reserved.]] {Margins. Margins shall be at least one inch (2.5
centimeters) on all sides. Line numbering may be within the left
margin.{time}
(4) Font. The font [size] shall be [14 point,] {readable and clean,
equivalent to 14 point Times New Roman,{time} including the font for
block quotations and footnotes.
(5) Length of appeal brief. An appeal brief may not exceed [30]
{25{time} pages, excluding any statement of the real party in
interest, statement of related cases, [jurisdictional statement,] table
of contents, table of authorities, [statement of amendments,] signature
block, and appendix. An appeal brief may not incorporate another paper
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 76 |
by reference. A request to exceed the page limit shall be made by petition
under § 41.3 filed at least ten calendar days prior to the date the appeal
brief is due.
Examiner's Answer (§ 41.39)
§ 41.39(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[No new ground of rejection.] {New rejection in examiner's
answer.{time} [An examiner's answer shall not include a new ground of
rejection.] {An examiner's answer may include a new rejection. If an
examiner's answer contains a rejection designated as a new rejection,
appellant must, within two months from the date of the examiner's
answer, exercise one of the following two options or the application
will be deemed to be abandoned or the reexamination proceeding will be
deemed to be terminated.{time}
{(1) Request to reopen prosecution. Request that prosecution be
reopened before the examiner by filing a reply under § 1.111 of
this title with or without amendment or submission of evidence. Any
amendment or evidence must be responsive to the new rejection. A
request that complies with this paragraph will be entered and the
application or patent under reexamination will be reconsidered by the
examiner under the provisions of § 1.112 of this title. A request
under this paragraph will be treated as a request to withdraw the
appeal.{time}
{(2) Request to maintain the appeal. Request that the appeal be
maintained by filing a reply brief as set forth in § 41.41 of this
subpart. A reply brief may not be accompanied by any amendment or
evidence, except an amendment canceling one or more claims which are
subject to the new rejection. A reply which is accompanied by evidence
or any other amendment will be treated as a request to reopen
prosecution pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.{time}
§ 41.39(c), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Extension of time to file request. The time for filing a request
under § 41.39(b)(1) is extendable under the provisions of §
1.136(a) of this title as to applications and under the provisions of
§ 1.550(c) of this title as to reexamination proceedings. A request
for an extension of time for filing a request under paragraph (b)(2) of
this section shall be presented as a petition under § 41.3 of this
part.{time}
Reply Brief (§ 41.41)
§ 41.41(c), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Extension of time to file reply brief. A request for an extension
of time to file a reply brief shall be presented as a petition under
§ 41.3 of this {sub{time} part.
§ 41.41(d), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Content of reply brief. {A reply brief shall be limited to
responding to points made in the examiner's answer.{time} Except as
otherwise set out in this section, the form and content of a reply
brief are governed by the requirements for an appeal brief as set out
in § 41.37 of this subpart. A reply brief may not exceed [20]
{fifteen{time} pages, excluding any table of contents, table of
authorities, {statement of timeliness,{time} [and] signature block,
{and supplemental appendix{time} required by this section. {If the
examiner enters and designates a rejection as a new rejection, the
reply brief may not exceed twenty-five pages, excluding any table of
contents, table of authorities, statement of timeliness, signature
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 77 |
block, and supplemental appendix required by this section.{time} A
request to exceed the page limit shall be made by petition under §
41.3 of this part and filed at least ten calendar days before the reply
brief is due. A reply brief must contain, under appropriate headings
and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) Table of authorities - see § 41.37(j) of this subpart.
(3) [[Reserved.]] {Statement of timeliness - see paragraph (e) of
this section{time} .
(4) Statement of [additional] facts - see paragraph (f) of this section.
(5) Argument[ - see paragraph (g) of this section.]
{(6) Supplemental appendix.{time}
§ 41.41(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[[Reserved.]] {Statement of timeliness. The "statement of timeliness"
shall include the date that the examiner's answer was entered and the
date that the reply is being filed. If the reply brief is filed after the
time specified in this subpart, appellant must indicate the date an
extension of time was requested and the date the request was granted.{time}
§ 41.41(g), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Argument. [Any arguments raised in the reply brief which are not
responsive to points made in the examiner's answer will not be
considered and will be treated as waived. {A reply brief is limited to
responding to points made in the examiner's answer. Arguments generally
restating the case will not be permitted in a reply brief.{time}
§ 41.41(h), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[[Reserved.]] {Supplemental appendix. If the examiner entered a new
rejection in the examiner's answer and appellant elects to respond to
the new rejection in a reply brief, this item shall include:
(1) A table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) The examiner's answer.
(3) All evidence upon which the examiner relied in support of the
new rejection that does not already appear in the evidence section
accompanying the appeal brief, except the specification, any drawings,
U.S. patents and U.S. published applications.{time}
{Examiner's response to reply brief (§ 41.43){time}
§ 41.43, as proposed, would be removed:
{Upon consideration of a reply brief, the examiner may withdraw a
rejection and reopen prosecution or may enter a supplemental examiner's
answer responding to the reply brief.{time}
{Supplemental reply brief (§ 41.44). [new rule number]{time}
§ 41.44(a), as proposed, would be removed:
{Supplemental reply brief authorized. If an examiner enters a
supplemental examiner's answer, an appellant may file a single
supplemental reply brief responding to the supplemental examiner's
answer.{time}
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 78 |
§ 41.44(b), as proposed, would be removed:
{Time for filing supplemental reply brief. Appellant must file a
supplemental reply brief within two months from the date of the mailing
of the examiner's supplemental answer.{time}
§ 41.44(c), as proposed, would be removed:
{Extension of time to file supplemental reply brief. A request for
an extension of time shall be presented as a petition under § 41.3.{time}
§ 41.44(d), as proposed, would be removed:
{Content of supplemental reply brief. Except as otherwise set out
in this subparagraph, the form and content of a supplemental reply
brief are governed by the requirements for appeal briefs as set out in
§ 41.37 of this subpart. A supplemental reply brief may not exceed
ten pages, excluding the table of contents, table of authorities, and
statement of timeliness and signature block. A request to exceed the
page limit shall be made by petition under § 41.3 of this part and
filed at least ten calendar days before the supplemental reply brief is
due. A supplemental reply brief must contain, under appropriate headings
and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) Table of authorities - see § 41.37(j) of this subpart.
(3) Statement of timeliness - see paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) Argument - see paragraph (f) of this section.{time}
§ 41.44(e), as proposed, would be removed:
{Statement of timeliness. The "statement of timeliness" shall
establish that the supplemental reply brief was timely filed by
including a statement of the date the supplemental examiner's answer
was entered and the date the supplemental reply brief is being filed.
If the supplemental reply brief is filed after the time specified in
this subpart, appellant must indicate the date an extension of time was
requested and the date the request was granted.{time}
§ 41.44(f), as proposed, would be removed:
{Argument. The "argument" shall be limited to responding to
points made in the supplemental examiner's answer. Arguments generally
restating the case will not be permitted in a supplemental reply
brief.{time}
§ 41.44(g), as proposed, would be removed:
{No amendment or new evidence. No amendment or new evidence may
accompany a supplemental reply brief.{time}
Oral Hearing (§ 41.47)
§ 41.47(c), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Time for filing request for oral hearing. Appellant must file a
request for oral hearing within two months from the date of the
examiner's answer {or supplemental examiner's answer{time} .
§ 41.47(i), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Oral hearing limited to [Record] {record{time} . At oral hearing
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 79 |
only the [Record] {record on appeal{time} will be considered. No
additional evidence may be offered to the Board in support of the
appeal. Any argument not presented in a brief cannot be raised at an
oral hearing.
§ 41.47(j), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Recent legal development. Notwithstanding {sub{time} paragraph (i)
of this section, an appellant or the examiner may rely on and call the
Board's attention to a recent court or Board opinion which could have
an effect on the manner in which the appeal is decided.
§ 41.47(k), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Visual aids. Visual aids may be used at an oral hearing, but must
be limited to {copies of{time} documents [or artifacts] in the
[Record] {record on appeal{time} [or a model or an exhibit presented
for demonstration purposes during an interview with the examiner]. At
the oral hearing, appellant should provide one copy of each visual aid
[(photograph in the case of an artifact, a model or an exhibit)] for
each judge and one copy [to be added to the Record] {for the record{time}.
Decisions and Other Actions by the Board (§ 41.50)
§ 41.50(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Remand. The Board may remand an application to the examiner. If in
response to [a] {the{time} remand [for further consideration of a
rejection], the examiner enters [an] {supplemental{time} examiner's
answer, within two months the appellant shall exercise one of the
following two options to avoid abandonment of the application or
termination of a reexamination proceeding:
(1) Request to reopen prosecution. Request that prosecution be
reopened before the examiner by filing a reply under § 1.111 of
this title with or without amendment or submission of evidence. Any
amendment or evidence must be responsive to the remand or issues
discussed in the {supplemental{time} examiner's answer. A request that
complies with this paragraph will be entered and the application or
patent under reexamination will be reconsidered by the examiner under
the provisions of § 1.112 of this title. A request under this
paragraph will be treated as a request to dismiss the appeal.
(2) Request to [re-docket] {maintain{time} the appeal. The
appellant may request that the Board re-docket the appeal (see § 41.35(a)
of this subpart) and file a reply brief as set forth in § 41.41 of this
subpart. A reply brief may not be accompanied by any
amendment or evidence. A reply brief which is accompanied by an
amendment or evidence will be treated as a request to reopen
prosecution pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
§ 41.50(d), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
New [ground of] rejection. Should the Board have a basis not
involved in the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may enter a
new [ground of] rejection. A new [ground of] rejection shall be
considered an interlocutory order and shall not be considered a final
decision. If the Board enters a new [ground of] rejection, within two
months appellant must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new [ground of] rejection to avoid dismissal of the
appeal as to any claim subject to the new [ground of] rejection:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an amendment of the claims subject
to a new [ground of] rejection or new evidence relating to the new
[ground of] rejection or both, and request that the matter be
reconsidered by the examiner. The application or reexamination
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 80 |
proceeding on appeal will be remanded to the examiner. A new [ground
of] rejection by the Board is binding on the examiner unless, in the
opinion of the examiner, the amendment or new evidence overcomes the
new [ground of] rejection. In the event the examiner maintains the new
[ground of] rejection, appellant may again appeal to the Board.
(2) Request for rehearing. Submit a request for rehearing pursuant
to § 41.52 of this subpart relying on the [Record]{record on appeal{time}.
§ 41.50(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Recommendation. In its opinion in support of its decision, the
Board may include a recommendation, explicitly designated as such, of
how a claim on appeal may be amended to overcome a specific rejection.
When the Board makes a recommendation, appellant may file an amendment
or take other action consistent with the recommendation. An amendment
or other action, otherwise complying with statutory patentability
requirements, will overcome the specific rejection. An examiner,
however, [upon return of the application or reexamination proceeding to
the jurisdiction of the examiner,] may enter a new [ground of]
rejection of a claim amended in conformity with a recommendation, when
appropriate.
§ 41.50(g), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Extension of time to take action. A request for an extension of
time to respond to a request for briefing and information under
paragraph (f) of this section is not authorized. A request for an
extension of time to respond to Board action under paragraphs (b) and
(d) of this section shall be presented as a petition under § 41.3
of this {sub{time} part.
Rehearing (§ 41.52)
§ 41.52(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Time for filing request for rehearing. Any request for rehearing
must be filed within two months from the date of the decision
[mailed]{entered{time} by the Board.
§ 41.52(c), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Extension of time to file request for rehearing. A request for an
extension of time shall be presented as a petition under § 41.3 of
this {sub{time} part.
§ 41.52(d), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Content of request for rehearing. {A request for rehearing shall
state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.{time} The form of a request
for rehearing is governed by the requirements of § 41.37(v) of this
subpart, except that a request for rehearing may not exceed [10]
{ten{time} pages, excluding any table of contents, table of
authorities, {statement of timeliness,{time} and signature block. A
request to exceed the page limit shall be made by petition under §
41.3 at least ten calendar days before the request for rehearing is
due. A request for rehearing must contain, under appropriate headings
and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) Table of authorities - see 41.37(j) of this subpart.
(3) [[Reserved.]] {Statement of timeliness - see paragraph (e) of
this section.{time}
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 81 |
(4) Argument - see paragraph (f) of this section.
§ 41.52(e), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
[[Reserved.]] {Statement of timeliness. The "statement of
timeliness" shall establish that the request for rehearing was timely
filed by including a statement of the date the decision sought to be
reheard was entered and the date the request for rehearing is being
filed. If the request for rehearing is filed after the time specified
in this subpart, appellant must indicate the date an extension of time
was requested and the date the request was granted.{time}
§ 41.52(f), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Argument. [A request for rehearing shall state with particularity
the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board.] In filing a request for rehearing, the argument shall adhere to
the following format: "On page x, lines y-z of the Board's opinion,
the Board states that [set out what was stated]. The point
misapprehended or overlooked was made to the Board in [identify paper,
page and line where argument was made to the Board] [or the point was
first made in the opinion of the Board]. The response is [state
response]." As part of each response, appellant shall refer to the
page number and line or drawing number of [a document in] the [Record]
{record on appeal{time} . [A] {No{time} general restatement of the
case [will not be considered an argument that the Board has
misapprehended or overlooked a point.] {is permitted in a request for
rehearing.{time} A new argument cannot be made in a request for
rehearing, except:
(1) New [ground of] rejection. Appellant may respond to a new
[ground of] rejection entered pursuant to § 41.50(d)(2) of this
subpart.
(2) Recent legal development. Appellant may rely on and call the
Board's attention to a recent court or Board opinion which is relevant
to an issue decided in the appeal.
Sanctions (§ 41.56)
§ 41.56(a), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Imposition of sanctions. [The Chief Administrative Patent Judge or
an expanded panel of the Board may impose a sanction] {A sanction may
be imposed{time} against an appellant for misconduct, including:
(1) Failure to comply with an order entered in the appeal or an
applicable rule.
(2) Advancing or maintaining a misleading or frivolous request for
relief or argument.
(3) Engaging in dilatory tactics.
§ 41.56(b), as proposed, would be revised as follows:
Nature of sanction. Sanctions may include entry of:
(1) An order declining to enter a docket{ing{time} notice.
(2) An order holding certain facts to have been established in the
appeal.
(3) An order expunging a paper or precluding an appellant from
filing a paper.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 82 |
(4) An order precluding an appellant from presenting or contesting
a particular issue.
(5) An order excluding evidence.
(6) [[Reserved.]] {An order requiring terminal disclaimer of patent
term.{time}
(7) An order holding an application on appeal to be abandoned or a
reexamination proceeding terminated.
(8) An order dismissing an appeal.
(9) An order denying an oral hearing.
(10) An order terminating an oral hearing.
Discussion of Comments
Generally
Comment 1. Several comments expressed a concern that many of the
appeals rules, as proposed, are not necessary and will not help the
Board resolve appeals.
Answer. A review of the comments as a whole suggests that many have
overlooked the fact that (1) the overall appeal process begins with the
notice of appeal and ends with a decision of the Board and (2) that the
process from notice of appeal to decision of the Board is bifurcated
within the Office. The Office bifurcates the overall appeal process
because some of the steps are carried out in the Technology Centers
while other steps are carried out before the Board. The notice of
appeal and appeal brief are filed while the appeal process is before
the Technology Center. Many of the requirements of the rules will help
the Board and Technology Center personnel. For example, a table of
contents and table of authorities helps Technology Center personnel
(e.g., the examiner and conferees in appeals) promptly locate
information in a brief. A jurisdictional statement will provide a road
map on whether an application on appeal is abandoned and will enable
Technology Center personnel to promptly advise an applicant in the
event an application is abandoned. Identification of whether an
argument in an appeal brief is "new" will enable Technology Center
personnel to evaluate the new argument and determine whether a
rejection should be withdrawn. Additionally, if a "new" argument is
made, Technology Center personnel will know that if the appeal is to go
forward that the argument will need to be answered. The rules should be
viewed as making the overall appeal process, albeit bifurcated,
efficient so as to eliminate at an early stage appeals which should not
go forward and make appeals which go forward capable of prompt
resolution.
Comment 2. A comment maintained that the proposed rule changes are
"substantive and NOT interpretive."
Answer. The rules are promulgated pursuant to the Director's
authority to establish regulations which govern the conduct of
proceedings in the Office, including regulations governing ex parte
appeals. 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A). The rules are merely procedural rules,
not substantive rules.
Comment 3. A comment suggested that the proposed appeals rules
would increase application pendency, inter alia, because examiners
would delay examination until the filing of an appeal brief. According
to the comment, delays occur under the former rules.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 83 |
Answer. The premise of the comment is that under the former rules
the examiners are not doing their job and are waiting for an appeal to
examine a patent application. The Director has confidence that
examiners are doing their job correctly. Furthermore, most
applications are examined without the need for filing a notice of
appeal. Therefore the comment is addressing a very small percentage of
all applications filed in the Office. If there are some examiners who
in the opinion of an applicant are not doing their job, the applicant
has a responsibility to call the matter to the attention of a Director
in the involved Technology Center. The Office cannot address and
respond to general comments about perceived improper behavior of
examiners. Like the examination of a patent application, perceived
inappropriate examination can be dealt with only on a case-by-case and
examiner-by-examiner basis. A Technology Center Director without
knowledge of difficulties experienced by an applicant is not likely to
be able take to steps to improve the examination process, whether
before or after a notice of appeal is filed. See Keebler Co. v. Murray
Bakery Products, 866 F.2d 1386, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (noting that
prescience is not a required characteristic of Office personnel).
Unless a matter is called to the attention of an Office manager in a
position to look into the facts, it is unlikely the behavior which the
comment alleges occurs can be corrected.
Comment 4. A comment indicated that from 40 to 60 percent of
appealed cases are reopened or allowed under existing rules. Another
comment indicated that only 50% of the appeals are transmitted to the
Board after the newly instituted appeal conferences in the Technology
Centers. The comments go on to state that applicants should not have to
file appeal briefs (either under the former rules or the new rules)
when many appeals never reach the Board. Other comments made similar
observations.
Answer. For appellants taking advantage of the Office's newly
instituted pre-appeal brief conferences, an appeal brief is not due
until the results of the pre-appeal conference are mailed to appellant.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of appeals proceed to the Board for
resolution. These rules establish procedures which will permit those
appeals reaching the Board to be resolved in an efficient manner.
Comment 5. A comment suggested that many of the appeals rules place
a burden on an applicant to establish patentability as opposed to
requiring the Office to establish unpatentability.
Answer. The comment misapprehends the nature of the rules. It is
the examiner's function to establish that claims are unpatentable. An
applicant dissatisfied with the examiner's unpatentability holding may
appeal to the Board. The appeals rules are not designed to make the
applicant prove patentability. However, they are designed to require
the applicant on appeal to show that the examiner erred. The rules also
require the applicant to provide enough information so that the Board
can determine what fact or legal matter is in dispute and resolve any
dispute. In many appeals, the Board has had to spend considerable time
trying to determine what matters are in issue.
Comment 6. The tenor of many comments is that applicants are
concerned with post-issuance matters, such as infringement cases. The
premise of the comments is that an applicant (soon to be a patentee)
should not have to state its position on various matters, including,
e.g., (1) the meaning of claims, (2) the level of skill in the art, and
(3) what element in a specification supports a means or step plus
function claim. The comments imply that if an applicant has to tell the
Board what its claim means, post-issuance doctrine of equivalents
positions may be compromised. Some comments suggest that the more which
needs to be said, the more likely an applicant will face allegations of
inequitable conduct when a patent is sought to be enforced.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 84 |
Answer. The Office is not unsympathetic to some of the concerns
expressed. However, it is also true that a patent file serves a public
notice function. To the extent that an applicant has to explain the
meaning of its claims, etc., to the Board to secure a reversal, no
applicant should be concerned. The examination process should be a
transparent process where prosecution reveals much about the scope and
meaning of a patent. Patent prosecution is not a procedure whereby an
applicant should be allowed to maneuver during prosecution only to
surprise the public when the patent issues. For these reasons, it is
difficult to see why an applicant would want to resist providing the
information the Board needs to determine whether an examiner erred. In
this respect, the Federal Circuit recently made the following
observation:
Where the applicant expressly and unambiguously states * * *
[an] intention to claim broadly, the claim construction issue is
easier and the question becomes one of validity - whether the
specification supports the full breadth of the new claims. On the
other hand, where - as in this case - the patentee has not been
explicit about the scope of the new claims, the case can pose
interdependent problems of both claim construction and validity.
Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). The appeal rules address the Federal Circuit's observation,
at least for those cases which require an appeal to be decided by the
Board.
Comment 7. Several comments called attention to events which are
said to have transpired in particular patent applications prosecuted by
those submitting the comments. According to the comments, examiners are
said to have mishandled each of the applications.
Answer. The rule making process is not a vehicle for correcting
errors which are said to have occurred during the prosecution of
particular patent applications. The comments were considered only to
the extent that they provided general observations and suggestions
relevant to a rule under consideration.
Comment 7A. Several comments called attention to mathematical
analysis of data compiled by the comment provider. According to the
comments, the analysis argued against implementation of the rules.
Answer. The data and analysis have been considered only to the
extent that each is relevant to a rule under consideration. The data
and analysis do not provide any justification for not implementing the
rules.
Comment 8. A comment suggested that a Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis is required. 5 U.S.C. 603.
Answer. A Regulatory Flexibility Act certification or analysis is
required only for proposed rules that are required to be published for
notice and comment. Because these rules are procedural, they are not
required to be published for notice and comment. Nevertheless, the
Office chose to publish these rules for comment prior to adoption of
the final rules in order to solicit valuable input from the public. See
the Regulatory Flexibility Act section under Rule Making Considerations
of this final rule for further information regarding certification of
the rules under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Comment 8A. Several comments stated that the notice of proposed
rule making should have been published earlier than July 30, 2007.
Answer. Although prior notice and an opportunity for public comment
are not required for the procedural changes in the rules as proposed,
the USPTO published a notice of proposed rule making in the Federal
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 85 |
Register as soon as the proposed rules were in an appropriate form for
publication.
Comment 9. Two comments suggested that the Office has not complied
with the Paperwork Reduction Act; specifically with regard to Bd.R.
41.37(t) and (u) and 41.41(h)(2) and (3).
Answer. Paragraphs (t) and (u) of section 41.37 have been revised
and do not require the collection of information beyond what is already
required by the current rules. Paragraph (h), including subparagraphs
(2) and (3), of section 41.41 have been reserved.
Comment 9A. A comment suggested that the Office has not complied
with Executive Order 12866.
Answer. For reasons given at the end of this notice, the Office has
complied with Executive Order 12866.
Bd.R. 41.3(a)
Comment 10. Several comments suggested that delegating authority to
the Chief Administrative Patent Judge to decide certain petitions for
extensions of time might result in delays. Other comments noted that
there have been occasions when petitions have not been promptly
forwarded to deciding officials within the Office.
Answer. Bd.R. 41.3 requires that a petition for an extension be
filed with the Office and addressed to the Chief Judge. Consideration
of requests for extensions decided by a single Office employee will
maximize uniform treatment of petitions for an extension of time.
Comment 11. A comment suggested that the Chief Administrative
Patent Judge would not be in a position to know examiner's hours and
schedules and therefore would not be in a good position to decide
petitions for an extension of time.
Answer. An examiner's hours or schedule are not relevant to whether
an applicant should receive an extension of time.
Bd.R. 41.4(a)
Comment 12. A comment observed that the Federal Register Notice (72
FR at 41,472), under "Timeliness of Petitions," states that the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge will determine (for the most part) whether
extensions of time are to be granted. Other Board rules state that a
request for an extension of time must be presented as a petition under
Bd.R. 41.3. The comment felt that the Notice gives an impression that
all requests for extensions of time under Bd.R. 41.4(a) would have to
be by way of a petition under Bd.R. 41.3. If so, then the comment
suggests that Bd.R. 41.4(a) should be amended to provide that a
petition under Bd.R. 41.3 is required.
Answer. The suggestion to change Bd.R. 41.4(a) is not being
adopted. Bd.R. 41.4(a) provides that extensions of time will be granted
only on a showing of good cause except as otherwise provided by rule.
Bd.R. 41.3 (1) applies to all cases pending before the Board, including
interference cases and requests for an extension of time by petition
under Bd.R. 41.4, and (2) sets the standard under which extensions of
time are granted. A petition for an extension of time under Bd.R. 41.3
is required only where another rule requires the petition to be filed,
e.g. (1) Bd.R. 41.41(c) (reply brief), (2) Bd.R. 41.47(d) (request for
oral hearing), and (3) Bd.R. 41.52(c) (request for rehearing).
Comment 13. A comment noted that possible requests for extensions
of time under the current appeal process might lead to unwarranted
patent term adjustment. The comment suggests that an amendment could be
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 86 |
made to Rule 704(c)(9) to deal with abuses of the extension of time
practice and the need for a petition for an extension of time is not
necessary.
Answer. A possible amendment to Rule 704(c)(9) is beyond the scope
of the notice of proposed rule making. Nevertheless, one factor in
determining whether a petition for an extension of time should be
granted is any possible patent term adjustment resulting from any
extension. In the case where granting a petition for an extension of
time would appear to result in unwarranted patent term adjustment, a
decision on petition could make an extension conditioned on an
appellant waiving its right to patent term adjustment equivalent to the
length of the extension.
Bd.R. 41.20
Comment 14. A comment suggested that if an examiner makes a new
ground of rejection in an examiner's answer and the applicant elects
further prosecution before the examiner, then the appeal fees (notice
of appeal and appeal brief) should be refunded or applied to any future
appeal.
Answer. The rules are being amended to provide that a new ground of
rejection cannot be made in the examiner's answer.
Bd.R. 41.30
Comment 15. One comment suggested that the transcript of oral
argument be considered part of the "record on appeal."
Answer. Since any "transcript of oral argument" is entered in the
file of the application or reexamination on appeal, it is part of the
Record. However, one concern in making the transcript part of the
Record will be attempts by appellants at oral hearing to raise "new"
issues not previously raised. A new argument raised for the first time
at an oral hearing will not be considered. See Bd.R. 41.47(i), which is
based on principles announced in Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., 227 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Henry v. Department of
Justice, 157 F.3d 863, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and LeVeen v. Edwards, 57
USPQ2d 1406, 1414 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000).
Comment 16. A comment suggested that the definition of "record on
appeal" is too broad because it could include, for example, U.S.
patents cited in an IDS which are not mentioned by either the examiner
or the appellant. The comment suggested that the definition be limited
to documents relied upon in the appeal.
Answer. The Record consists of the material in the official file of
the application or reexamination on appeal. However, unless a
particular document in the Record has been mentioned or relied upon, a
document cannot form part of the "evidence" considered by the
examiner or the Board. Patents cited in an IDS, but not relied upon by
either the examiner or the appellant in the appeal will not be
considered by the Board. Likewise, Office actions, responses to Office
actions, prior art and evidence cited earlier in the prosecution, but
not relied upon in the appeal, would not be considered.
Comment 17. A comment suggested that the record on appeal (Bd.R.
41.30 and Bd.R. 41.37(t)) should be "the entire administrative
record."
Answer. The suggestion is adopted. A definition of "Record" has
been added to the definitions in Bd.R. 41.30. However, as the answer to
the previous comments makes clear, a document in the Record not called
to the attention of the examiner and the Board will not be considered.
A document called to the Board's attention the first time in a petition
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 87 |
for rehearing will almost always be denied consideration. Experience
shows that after an adverse decision by the Board, on appeal to the
Federal Circuit an appellant will refer to documents in the court brief
which were not called to the attention of the Board. The Federal
Circuit is entitled to know that the document relied upon in an appeal
before it was addressed in the arguments made to the Board. The appeal
brief, reply brief and request for rehearing will establish what part
of the Record was relied upon in the appeal by the appellant, the
examiner and the Board.
Comment 18. A comment suggested that the definition of the record
on appeal gives preferential status to U.S. patents and published U.S.
applications. The comment goes on to say that published foreign
applications and technical journal articles are also important.
Answer. Given the added definition of Record in Bd.R. 41.30, it is
believed that any concern in the comment has been answered.
Bd.R. 41.31(c)
Comment 19. A suggestion was made that Bd.R. 41.31(c) be amended to
permit an appellant to file a notice of appeal without the payment of
any "late" fee (see Rule 136(a) and Rule 550(c)) when there is a
delay in deciding a petition (see Bd.R. 41.31(e)).
Answer. The suggestion is beyond the scope of the notice of
proposed rule making and will not be adopted.
Comment 20. A comment suggested that an applicant should be able to
appeal to the Board an examiner's refusal to enter an amendment.
Answer. The suggestion is not adopted. However, consistent with
long-standing practice, review of an examiner's decision not entering
an amendment will remain available by petition.
Bd.R. 41.31(e)
Comment 21. A comment suggested that the "waiver" language of
Bd.R. 41.31(e) would apply to a continuing application and a request
for continued examination (RCE). The comment suggested that waiver
would not be appropriate in a continuation or an RCE.
Answer. The language "in the application or reexamination on
appeal" has been added to the end of Bd.R. 41.31(e). From a practical
point of view, however, a waiver in a reexamination may mean the issue
has been ultimately waived for all time.
Bd.R. 41.33(b)
Comment 22. A comment suggested that Bd.R. 41.33(b) would preclude
entry of an amendment requested by the examiner. The same comment noted
that Bd.R. 41.37(d) would preclude entry of evidence requested by the
examiner.
Answer. The comment misperceives the authority of the examiner and
the purpose of the appeal rules in general. Bd.R. 41.33(b) and Bd.R.
41.33(d) advise applicants when they can expect that an amendment or
evidence will be entered. The rules advise an applicant when it would
be futile to file an amendment or evidence. However, nothing in the
rule should be construed as precluding an examiner from suggesting an
amendment or evidence and entering the amendment or evidence if timely
filed. An appellant should realize that the examiner may reopen the
prosecution. With limited exceptions, the appeal rules do not purport
to require or not require action by the examiner or other Office
personnel. The rules advise applicants what the Office requires and
expects from them. Practices applicable to what an examiner should do
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 88 |
are best left to administrative orders and the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure. Stated in other terms, the Director does not need
a rule to tell Office personnel what they can or cannot do; the
Director has inherent authority to issue administrative instructions on
how agency business is to be handled by Office personnel.
Bd.R. 41.33(d)
Comment 23. Several comments noted that Bd.R. 41.33(d) would permit
evidence filed after a notice of appeal if the evidence overcomes some
or all rejections. On the other hand, the supplementary information
states (72 FR at 41,473, col. 3, near the end of the first full
paragraph) that even where good cause is shown, if the evidence does
not "overcome all rejections," the evidence would not be admitted.
Answer. The supplementary information should have said "overcome
some or all rejections." There is a possibility that the language
"some or all rejections" could be read to mean that all rejections
must be overcome. The language of Bd.R. 41.33(d) has been changed to
read "at least one rejection".
Comment 24. A comment suggested that after the notice of appeal, if
the examiner has considered evidence to the extent that the evidence
does not overcome some or all rejections, the evidence should be
entered in the record.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. There are two
conditions which must be met for an applicant to have evidence
"admitted" into the record after the filing of a notice of appeal.
First, an applicant must show good cause for having not earlier
presented the evidence. Second, the evidence must be of such weight and
character as to overcome some or all rejections. Nothing in the rule
should be construed as precluding an examiner from suggesting the
presentation of particular evidence and entering the evidence if timely
filed. An applicant should realize that the examiner may enter the
evidence and reopen the prosecution.
Comment 25. A comment suggested that an applicant should have a
right to file additional evidence after a notice of appeal has been
filed.
Answer. The suggestion is not adopted. The time for evidence to be
filed, except as otherwise provided in a rule, e.g., Bd.R. 41.33(d) and
(e), is prior to the notice of appeal.
Bd.R. 41.33(e)
Comment 26. A suggestion was made that an appellant be authorized
to submit "new" evidence to respond to a "new" fact or conclusion
made by the examiner for the first time in a final rejection or an
Examiner's Answer responding to an appeal brief.
Answer. The suggestion will not be adopted. The notice of proposed
rulemaking does not address presentation of evidence in response to a
final rejection. See Rule 116 for practice after final rejection. If
the examiner's answer states a new fact or conclusion, an appellant may
take the position that the rejection is a new ground of rejection and
request that the examiner reopen prosecution to consider new evidence.
If the examiner agrees, prosecution would be reopened and the evidence
would be considered. If the examiner disagrees, then the evidence would
not be admitted. An appellant dissatisfied with an examiner's decision
should seek administrative relief by petition.
Bd.R. 41.35(a)
Comment 27. Several comments suggested that delays occur in the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 89 |
Office between the filing of the notice of appeal and transmittal of
the appeal to the Board. Related comments suggested that the Office
should impose a time limit on how long an application may remain with a
Technology Center after a reply brief is filed. It was suggested that a
maximum period of three months should be "imposed."
Answer. Under the rules, the Office expects that an application
will be forwarded immediately to the Board after a reply brief is
filed. Any delay in forwarding appeals to the Board following filing of
a reply brief (or after the time expires for filing a reply brief) are
an internal operating matter which is not appropriately addressed in a
rule. Nevertheless, the Director agrees with the comment to the extent
that a delay in transmitting an appeal to the Board is not appropriate.
There are two steps an appellant can take which would help the Office
minimize delays. First, if appellant does not intend to file a reply
brief, a one-page notice to the Office to that effect would trigger the
appeal being forwarded to the Board. Second, if after filing a reply
brief, an appellant does not receive within a reasonable time a docket
notice from the Board, a one-page notice to the Office to that effect
would help the Office promptly transmit the appeal to the Board.
Bd.R. 41.35(a)
Comment 28. A comment suggested that Bd.R. 41.35(a) should be amended
to provide that jurisdiction over an appeal begins when a notice of
appeal is filed. According to the suggestion, transferring jurisdiction
when a docket notice is mailed could mean that a successful appellant
may not receive all patent term adjustments to which it may be
entitled.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. Patent term adjustment
associated with an ex parte appeal is governed by Rule 703(b)(4) and
other provisions of Subpart F of Part 1 of 37 CFR.
Bd.R. 41.37
Comment 29. A comment suggested that the appeal brief rules will
result in unnecessary exposure to allegations of inequitable conduct.
It appears the comment is particularly concerned with evidence in the
application file not called to the attention of the Board in the
evidence section (Bd.R. 41.37(t)).
Answer. These rules limit the content of the evidence section
compared to the content required by the rules as proposed. In any
event, inequitable conduct requires intent to deceive. If in an appeal
brief an appellant refers to and explains the significance of a
document already in the official file of the application or
reexamination on appeal, it is difficult to see how there can be intent
to deceive.
Bd.R. 41.37(a)
Comment 30. A comment suggested that the language "proceedings on
the appeal are terminated without further action on the part of the
Office" needs clarification.
Answer. The language is intended to put applicants on notice that
if an appeal brief is not timely filed, the appeal is "over" and that
no notice to that effect should be expected from the Office.
An applicant knows when an appeal brief is due and whether the
appeal brief is to be filed. Bd.R. 41.37(a) advises the applicant that
it should not expect a notice that proceedings on the appeal are
terminated (although the Office may nevertheless issue a notice in the
form of a notice of abandonment). If there are no allowed claims, then
any continuing applications (35 U.S.C. 120) would have to be filed
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 90 |
before the date the appeal brief was due. If there are allowed claims,
the application on appeal continues to be a pending application. The
examiner would take such steps as may be needed to advance prosecution
to issue, including making a requirement for the applicant to take
certain action within a period of time. Rejected claims on appeal would
be cancelled since a failure to file an appeal brief constitutes a
waiver of any right to those claims in the application on appeal. The
rule does not affect the pending status of any application in which
there is an allowed claim.
Bd.R. 41.37(c)
Comment 31. Several comments suggested that a review should be
taken in the Technology Center after a notice of appeal is filed and
that an appeal brief should not be due until the review is complete.
For example, it was suggested that an SPE (supervisory patent examiner)
review the claims based on the last amendment filed. Alternatively, an
applicant would be permitted to specify one claim for consideration and
if that claim turned out to be allowable, the applicant would forego
the appeal.
Answer. The suggestions are not adopted principally on the ground
that the reviews involved add to pendency. There are two problems
associated with additional pendency. The first is overall pendency of
an application. The second is patent term adjustment for time spent in
appeals.
Bd.R. 41.37(e)
Comment 32. Several comments suggested that the appeal brief
requirements seem disproportionately burdensome for applicants.
Answer. The Director recognizes that some additional burden may be
imposed by these appeal rules. As a result of comments received from
the public, the requirement for content of appeal briefs has been
reduced, particularly in the need for an evidence section.
Nevertheless, it also must be recognized that the number of appeals is
expected to rise significantly in the near future. A rise in the number
of appeals should not mean that an applicant taking an appeal should
have to wait an unreasonable period to receive a decision on appeal.
One possible way to ensure continued prompt decisions is to add judges
to the Board so that an increased volume can be handled within current
time frames. However, continued hiring of new employees will not by
itself reduce backlogs. There is a practical limit to the number of
judges and employees the Office can hire. Alternative procedures and
techniques must be found to permit the Board to efficiently handle the
expected rise in appeals.
Many of the comments are based on an underlying premise that the
commentator's appeal will be considered and that the requirements of
the rules impose an unwarranted burden in that appeal. Absent some
adjustment which permits the agency to efficiently consider and decide
appeals, the premise that the commentator's appeal will be considered
promptly may turn out to be incorrect; while the appeal eventually will
be reached and considered, the appeal may end up in a large backlog
only to be reached when time permits. The rules seek to implement
procedures which will assist the Office in avoiding delays in deciding
appeals. However, to avoid delays, the Office needs help from
applicants taking an appeal. The rules set out the help the Office
needs.
Comment 33. A comment made a suggestion that, under certain
conditions, the Director consider a "mini-appeal brief" as an
alternative to an appeal brief. Those conditions were identified as
including (1) a single rejection as to all claims on appeal, (2) all
claims stand or fall together, and (3) no evidence is relied upon by
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 91 |
the applicant (e.g., declarations or publications). The comment
suggested that a "mini-appeal brief" could be limited to 10 pages and
would not need to include all the sections required by Bd.R. 41.37(e).
See also Comment 91.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted, principally because
the content of a possible mini-brief was not the subject of the notice
of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly and apart from the suggestion, the
Office does not have the necessary input or experience under these
rules to determine the parameters for a mini-brief. The Office will
continue to study the idea of a mini-brief and after some experience
under the rules as amended may again consider the viability of a mini-
brief.
Comment 34. A comment suggested that rule changes are not needed
because the Board was able to reduce a backlog of 9,000 appeals ten
years ago to a manageable number of appeals.
Answer. The comment is correct that the number of pending appeals
was reduced. However, the reduction took place by adding judges. As
earlier noted, however, the Office cannot solve all of its obligations
by adding personnel. In FY 1998, the Board received 4,466 appeals and
had 46 judges (some of whom were assigned to handle interference cases)
to handle the appeals. In FY 2000, the Board received only 2,981
appeals, but had increased the number of judges to 65 (some of whom
were assigned to handle interference cases). The Board faced a
significant challenge in FY 2007. The two-year growth in FY 2006 and FY
2007, of approximately 50%, is by far the largest two-year growth in
patent appeal receipts in the years tracked at the Board. In FY 2007,
the Board received 4,639 appeals. The FY 2007 receipts represent over a
38% increase from the prior year. In contrast, FY 1994, FY 1995,
and FY 1996 receipts were: 3,667; 4,318; and 4,466 appeals, respectively
(not including returns). For this three-year growth, the percent rise in
patent appeal receipts was only a 21.8% increase, but resulted in a 900
appeal backlog. Adding to the challenge, the Board has lost many
experienced judges due to retirement. Since the high point of 66 judges
in FY 2002, Board membership fell to 55 judges at the beginning of FY 2007.
Of the 66 judges on board in FY 2002, only 40 are here today. Moreover, at
the end of FY 2007, approximately 38% of the judges were newly hired within
the last two years. This represents the highest proportion of newly
hired judges in recent Board history.
Bd.R. 41.37(f)
Comment 35. A comment suggested that the language in Bd.R. 41.37(f)
"in such a manner as to readily permit a member of the Board to
determine whether recusal would be appropriate" is not clear. Rather
than leaving it to the applicant, the comment suggests that the rule
itself spell out what information is required.
Answer. The requirement for an identification of a real party in
interest is to avoid participation in an appeal by an administrative
patent judge who has an ethical obligation of recusal. As the comment
noted, when the real party in interest is an assignee, e.g., a company,
compliance with the rule is straightforward. However, often the real
party in interest is a licensee prosecuting an application with the
approval of the assignee. Sometimes, the real party in interest is a
group of organizations each with varying interests. No rule can specify
all possible circumstances under which an entity or individual needs to
be identified. Accordingly, the rule identifies the purpose of why
information is being requested so that registered practitioners,
familiar with the entities and individuals involved, can exercise
professional judgment to notify the Board of circumstances which might
warrant recusal.
Bd.R. 41.37(g)
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 92 |
Comment 36. A comment suggested that the related proceedings be
made clear. In addition, the comment suggested that the "known to
appellant, the appellant's legal representative, or assignee" can be a
very large number of people in a large corporate environment.
Answer. The nature of the related cases to be identified is present
in Rule 41.37(c)(1)(ii) and has not presented any known problem to
date. Rather than attempt to change the language defining a related
case, the Office will leave the language the same in Bd.R. 41.37(g) and
observe whether problems arise in the future.
The suggestion concerning large corporate entities has merit. If a
corporation has a patent department with units in New York and Colorado
or a law firm has offices in Chicago and Los Angeles, the patent
department and law firm could find it difficult to comply with the
rule. Accordingly, the language in Proposed Bd.R. 41.37(g) "known to
appellant, appellant's legal representative or assignee" has been
changed to "known to any inventors, any attorneys or agents who
prepared or prosecuted the application on appeal and any other person
who was substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the
application on appeal." The changed language conforms closely to the
individuals mentioned in Rule 56(c) and narrows the individuals who
need to be consulted.
Bd.R. 41.37(h)
Comment 37. Several comments suggested that a jurisdictional
statement is not necessary.
Answer. Reference is made to Comment 1 for an explanation of why a
jurisdictional statement helps the overall appeal process.
A prudent practitioner will always check prior to filing a notice
of appeal that the notice is being timely filed. Likewise, a prudent
practitioner will check prior to filing an appeal brief that the appeal
brief is timely filed. The jurisdictional statement will simply
memorialize the practitioner's check and will help Board personnel
confirm that the application or reexamination proceeding on appeal is
pending and not "abandoned" or "terminated." In the event a check
reveals that an abandonment or termination has occurred, the applicant
or patent owner can take advantage of available revival remedies at an
early date and avoid an unnecessary dismissal of an appeal.
Comment 38. A comment asked the question: When is a petition for an
extension of time under Rule 136(a) granted?
Answer. Assuming that a petition for an extension of time complies
procedurally with the rule and that the required fee is paid, a
petition for an extension of time under Rule 136(a) is granted
"automatically" upon its filing. In a jurisdictional statement it
would be appropriate to state that: "A petition for an extension of
time under Rule 136(a) was filed and granted on [state date petition
filed]."
Bd.R. 41.37(i)
Comment 39. A comment suggested that subsection (i) should precede
subsections (f), (g) and (h) and that the Table of Contents should be
item (1) in Bd.R. 41.37(e).
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted because the comment
does not indicate why a change is necessary.
Comment 40. A comment suggested that a table of contents is not
helpful and serves no useful purpose.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 93 |
Answer. Reference is made to Comment 1 for explanation of how the
table of contents is useful in the overall appeals process. In
addition, although not required by rule, the Board has received appeal
briefs with tables of contents. The tables of contents have proved
useful in the Board's consideration of those appeal briefs.
Bd.R. 41.37(j)
Comment 41. A comment asked the question: How will a list of
authorities assist the Board in any meaningful way?
Answer: Reference is made to Comment 1 for an explanation of how a
table of authorities is useful during the overall appeals process.
Modern word processors make creation of a table of authorities fairly
easy. A table of authorities is often useful when an examiner or a
member of the Board knows that a particular argument is associated with
a citation of a particular statute or case. Consultation of the table
of authorities will reveal where the citation, and therefore the
argument, appears without a need to go through a brief page-by-page.
Arguments based on a particular precedent therefore are less likely to
be overlooked.
Comment 42. A related comment suggested that a table of authorities
is not needed because appeals to the Board often do not turn on legal
issues.
Answer. If the premise of the comment is accepted, then it would
follow that few, if any, cases would be cited in a table of authorities
and would involve minimal effort.
Bd.R. 41.37(k)
Comment 43. A comment suggested that the requirement of Bd.R
41.37(k) was redundant with the requirements of Bd.R. 41.37(q).
Answer. While the requirements of Bd.R. 41.37(k) are not redundant
with the requirements of Bd.R. 41.37(q), they are redundant with the
requirements of Bd.R. 41.37(p). Both Bd.R. 41.37(k) and Bd.R. 41.37(p)
deal with pending claims. Bd.R. 41.37(k) will be reserved.
Bd.R. 41.37(n)
Comment 44. Several comments noted that the rules in various places
require citation to a page and line number. The comments suggest that,
where appropriate, a citation to a paragraph number be authorized in
place of a line number. An example where paragraph numbers are
appropriate is a reference made to a published U.S. patent application.
Answer. The suggestion is adopted. An amendment to Bd.R. 41.37(n)
authorizes citation to paragraphs where a paragraph citation is
appropriate.
Comment 45. Several comments noted that it is difficult to present
facts in a non-argumentative manner and therefore Bd.R. 41.37(n) is
"unworkable" and unnecessary. By way of an example, the comment notes
that the examiner may find that a reference describes certain subject
matter, and applicant disagrees. The comment goes on to question why a
specific reference to the record is necessary. Other comments suggested
that the manner of presenting facts should be at the discretion of the
applicant. On the other hand, still other comments expressed the view
that a statement of facts "could be a useful innovation."
Answer. A specific reference to the record is necessary so that
Office personnel, including the examiner and the Board, can verify the
correctness of a fact. Applicants should not expect either the examiner
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 94 |
or the Board to necessarily believe assertions of fact unsupported by a
reference to the record. A statement of fact which is immediately
verifiable to a specific point in the record is highly convincing.
The observation that a statement of facts "could be a useful
innovation" has merit. A well-written statement of facts can tell a
"story" in an objective manner, particularly when each statement of
fact is supported by a citation to a specific portion of the evidence.
Often telling the story objectively convinces the trier of fact of the
merit of a position. After reading an objective concise statement of
facts, it is not unusual for a trier of fact to look with anticipation
for an answer. There is no reason to expect that there should be any
difficulty objectively setting out facts. An example follows involving
Facts 1-5: Fact 1. The examiner found that Jones (the reference)
describes a battery (col. 2, lines 4-9). Fact 2. Applicant disagrees.
(Note that applicant disagrees is a "fact". Fact 2 does not include
an "argument" why applicant disagrees because the argument is
reserved for the argument section). Fact 3. Jones describes [state what
applicant believes Jones describes] (col. 1, lines 31-46). Fact 4. A
battery must have electrodes (col. 8, lines 1-12). Fact 5. The device
described by Jones does not have electrodes (Fig. 2). Note that no
argument has been presented; only objective facts. From these objective
facts the argument section can make out the case that the Jones device
is not a battery. Objectively stated Facts 3-5, sans argument, speak
for themselves and go a long way to convincing a trier of fact that
applicant is correct thereby suggesting that the examiner's finding may
be erroneous.
Comment 46. Several comments suggested that the statement of facts
addresses only the facts in dispute.
Answer. The suggestion is not adopted. While the examiner and the
appellant may have an idea of what is involved and disputed in an
application, appeal conferees and the Board do not participate in the
prosecution leading up to an appeal. An understanding of the issues on
appeal requires an understanding of the facts, including (1) those in
dispute and (2) those not in dispute which are relevant to
understanding the nature of the invention on appeal and the issues.
Comment 47. A comment suggested that in an ex parte context facts
related to the level of skill in the art are not necessary.
Answer. The level of skill can be manifested in several ways. In re
GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the context of an ex
parte appeal, the level of skill is often revealed in the prior art. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) [for evidence of the level
of skill, one may consider an applicant's disclosure and the prior art
(references are generally entitled to great weight because they are
almost always prepared without regard to their use as evidence in the
particular examination in which they are used, Velander v. Garner, 348
F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003))]. For example, in many pharmaceutical
cases, a reference will say that determining a dose within disclosed
ranges can be determined on the basis of weight of the patient. One
skilled in the art, therefore, would know that dosage is a function of
weight. Another example might be where a reference says that you cannot
apply a voltage higher than 220, yet an appellant is claiming a voltage
of 550. The reference would establish that one skilled in the art would
not be inclined to exceed a voltage of 220.
Bd.R. 41.37(o)
Comment 48. Several comments suggested that the provision of Bd.R.
41.37(o) requiring an appellant to explain why the examiner is believed
to have erred "unfairly shifts the burden of proving a prima facie
case on appeal from the PTO to the patent applicant."
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 95 |
Answer. The necessary premise of trhe comment is that on appeal to
the Board the examiner should be presumed to have erred and it is up to
the examiner in an examiner's answer to show otherwise. The comment
misperceives the difference between (1) initial examination leading to
a final rejection and (2) an appeal from that final rejection. In
responding to a rejection during examination, Rule 111(b) requires an
applicant to specifically point out the supposed errors in the
examiner's action. In most appellate administrative and court
tribunals, a decision under review is presumed to be correct until an
appellant can convince the appellate tribunal that the decision is
incorrect, whether the decision involves a question of fact or an issue
of law or both. As one comment correctly stated: "[t]he appellant has
to make the case for error on the record." On appeal to the Board, an
appellant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence to
support a prima facie case or rebutting any prima facie case with
appropriate evidence. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). The rules impose no new burden on an appellant seeking review of
an examiner's rejection before the Board.
It is true that opinions of the former Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals and Federal Circuit state that the initial burden is on the PTO
to establish a prima facie case. However, the Director is not aware of
any CCPA or Federal Circuit opinion which states that the decision of
the Office on appeal is presumed to be erroneous. In fact, the opposite
is the case because a decision of an administrative agency is presumed
to be correct absent a statutory provision to the contrary. Cf. (1)
Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 125 (1894) (a decision of the Office
must be accepted as controlling unless the contrary is established),
and (2) American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d
1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (deference is due to PTO examiners who are
assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be
familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art and whose
duty it is to issue only valid patents).
If an examiner is presumed to be correct when the examiner allows a
claim (and a patent issues as a result), what possible rationale would
justify a presumption that the examiner is wrong when the examiner
rejects a claim? It is true that an examiner has an initial burden to
make out a prima facie case.
For example, 35 U.S.C. 102 states that an applicant "shall be entitled
to a patent unless * * * " Once an examiner determines that the
applicant is not entitled to a patent, the "unless" provision of
§ 102 is facially satisfied until an interested party can show
otherwise. Cf. Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(noting that the examiner made out a prima facie case and therefore
Hyatt was under a duty to comply with PTO requirements).
If an appellant believes the examiner has not satisfied the
examiner's initial burden, then an appellant needs to convince the
Board that there is no prima facie case. There is no "rule" which
supports a notion that the examiner must be presumed on appeal to have
erred; such a rule would be inconsistent with an efficient
administration of the ex parte appeal process.
A suggestion was made that placing the burden on the appellant to
establish that the examiner erred is not consistent with the duties of
the Board as provided by 35 U.S.C. 6. The suggestion is believed to be
incorrect and overlooks similarities between an appeal to the Board and
a subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit. An ex parte appeal may be
taken to the Board from an adverse decision of an examiner. 35 U.S.C.
134(a) and (b). On written appeal, the Board is to review the adverse
decision by the examiner. 35 U.S.C. 6(b). An appellant dissatisfied
with a decision of the Board may appeal to the Federal Circuit. 35
U.S.C. 141. On appeal, the Federal Circuit is to review the decision
from which an appeal is taken. 35 U.S.C. 144. There is no known
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 96 |
precedent of the Federal Circuit which holds that the Director has the
burden on appeal. Why should the examiner have the burden on appeal to
the Board? As noted earlier, no cogent rationale could justify such a
burden on the Office. Just as the Board is presumed to have been
correct in the Federal Circuit, until the contrary is shown to the
satisfaction of the Federal Circuit, the examiner should be presumed to
have been correct on appeal to the Board until the contrary is shown to
the satisfaction of the Board.
It has also been suggested that the Board is under an obligation to
review a decision of the examiner de novo. The precise meaning of de
novo is not apparent. No provision of law imposes an obligation for a
de novo review and such a review is inconsistent with efficient
administration of appeals. While the Board may have more latitude in an
ex parte appeal than an Article III court, there is no cogent reason to
review facts on a "no deference" basis. An examiner performs a quasi-
judicial function. Western Electric Co. v. Piezo Technology, Inc. v.
Quigg, 860 F.2d 428, 431 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (patent examiners are quasi-
judicial officials); Compagnie de St. Gobain v. Brenner, 386 F.2d 985,
987 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (examiner performs quasi-judicial function based
on the record before PTO). The question on appeal is whether an
examiner's finding is supported by the evidence. If it is, the finding
should not be second-guessed and set aside by the Board on the basis
that the Board in the first instance would have made a different
finding. The Board (like courts) is not in the business of substituting
its judgment for that of an examiner when an examiner justifies a fact
or conclusion with appropriate evidence. A contrary view undermines the
authority of the examiner to carrying out the examination duties
delegated by the Director to the examiner pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 131-
132. On the other hand, if an examiner's finding is not supported by
appropriate evidence, the Board has authority to set aside the finding
and if the finding is essential to a rejection to also set aside the
rejection. The question before the Board, then, is not an examination
(that already took place under 35 U.S.C. 131-132); rather, the Board's
chore is to review the examiner's decision and correct errors which an
appellant can establish were made by the examiner.
The review process is straightforward. An example and a question in
a comment confirm how the process works. Suppose the examiner finally
rejects claim 1 finding that reference A describes limitation Y of
claim 1. Assume that the appeal brief (through a combination of a
statement of facts and argument) convincingly establishes that
reference A does not describe limitation Y. The comment asked what will
happen. First, if the argument is convincing, the examiner may withdraw
the rejection. Second, if the examiner does not withdraw the rejection
and the Board agrees with the appellant, then the rejection would be
set aside.
Comment 49. A comment suggested clarification is needed for the
meaning of "[e]ach rejection shall be separately argued under a
separate heading" and "[a]ny claim argued separately shall be placed
under a subheading identifying the claim by number." According to the
comment, similar language in Rule 41.37(c)(1)(vii) has "proven to be
elusive to the USPTO." Presumably, the comment suggests that the
Office has not uniformly applied the quoted language.
Answer. The comment is best answered in the form of an example.
Suppose an application has claims 1-7. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) over Jones. Claims 1-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as
anticipated by Smith. With respect to the "Jones" rejection,
applicant elects to argue claims 1 and 4 separately. Claims 2-3 and 5-7
would stand or fall with claim 1 as to the "Jones" rejection. With
respect to the "Smith" rejection, applicant elects to argue claims 1
and 3 separately. Claims 2 and 4 would stand or fall with claim 1. The
headings and subheadings of the argument section of the appeal brief
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 97 |
would be the following:
ARGUMENT
Errors in Rejection Based on Jones
Claim 1
Discussion of why the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
§ 103 over Jones.
Claim 4
Discussion of why the examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under
§ 103 over Jones even if the examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1 over Jones. Note that when a dependent claim is separately
argued, any argument should assume arguendo that the independent claim
is unpatentable over Jones.
Errors in Rejection Based on Smith
Claim 1
Discussion of why the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
§ 102 over Smith.
Claim 3
Discussion of why the examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under
§ 102 over Smith even if the examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1 over Smith.
Comment 50. A comment suggested that requiring an appellant to
challenge every finding and every conclusion reached by an examiner is
not appropriate.
Answer. There is no requirement that every finding and conclusion
be challenged. The appeal brief should challenge only those findings
made and conclusions reached by the examiner with which the appellant
disagrees.
Comment 51. A comment asked the following question: If a rejection
of all claims is based on A or B in view of C or D, do there need to be
four headings, one for A in view of C, B in view of C, A in view of D
and B in view of D.
Answer. There would need to be only a single heading: Rejection
based on A or B in view of C or D.
Comment 52. Several comments suggested that there is no need to
identify a new argument made in an appeal brief.
Answer. Reference is made to Comment 1 for an explanation of why
identification of a new argument in an appeal brief is useful during
the appeal process. Identification of an argument as a new argument
should prevent timely made meritorious new arguments from being
overlooked.
Comment 53. A comment suggested that it is not always easy to
determine whether an argument is "new" or not.
Answer. Registered practitioners are sufficiently qualified to
generally recognize a "new" argument. It can also be observed that,
based on agency experience, a "new" argument often surfaces when the
practitioner handling the appeal is different from the practitioner
handling pre-appeal prosecution. In case of doubt, an appeal brief
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 98 |
could use the following model: "On page 5, lines 4-12, the examiner
found [state what was found]. In the response to the first action (page
3, lines 3-6), appellant disagreed arguing [state what was argued].
There was no response in the final rejection to the appellant's
argument. Appellant continues to believe that the examiner erred in
making the finding because [state the reason]." Alternatively, the
last sentence could read "Appellant continues to believe that the
examiner erred in making the finding because [state the reason]. In
addition by way of possible new argument, the examiner is further
believed to have erred [state the new argument]."
Comment 54. A comment requested clarification on whether an
unchallenged finding made by an examiner (which will be presumed to be
correct) is binding in a subsequent continuing application or RCE
(request for continued examination).
Answer. While binding for the purpose of the appeal and any remand
in the application which was on appeal, in a subsequent continuing
application or RCE, the applicant would be free to challenge the
finding.
Comment 55. A comment suggested that it is often useful to provide
technical background to assist the Board in understanding the invention
and requested clarification on how that might be done in the context of
Bd.R. 41.37.
Answer. The comment is correct that a technical background is often
useful to the examiner and the Board. The technical background can be
presented as part of the statement of facts. Bd.R. 41.37(n). In
presenting the technical background, reference should be made to the
record. Relevant parts of the record might include (1) the
specification, (2) technical literature in the record and (3) any
declaration in the record.
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1)
Comment 56. A comment sought clarification of Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1)
asking whether the appellant or the Board would "select a single claim
to decide the appeal as to that rejection."
Answer. The language of Bd.R. 41.37(o)(1) has been changed from
that in the notice of proposed rulemaking. If claims are argued as a
group, then the Board may select a single claim and review any ground
of rejection on the basis of the single claim.
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(2)
Comment 57. A comment suggested that Bd.R. 41.37(o)(2) may preclude
an argument being presented in an appeal, because rationale in an
examiner's answer may be more extensive than rationale in a final
rejection and the appeal brief is limited to showing that the rationale
in the final rejection is erroneous. According to the comment, since an
argument in a reply brief (Bd.R. 41.41) was not made in the appeal
brief, the argument may be waived.
Answer. A reply brief may respond to a finding or conclusion made
in an examiner's answer which was not made in a final rejection. If the
finding was made in the final rejection and not addressed in the appeal
brief, an appellant cannot address the finding for the first time in a
reply brief or at oral hearing. However, where the finding is made for
the first time in an examiner's answer, an appellant may respond in a
reply brief indicating why the record supports a holding that the
finding is erroneous.
Comment 58. A comment suggested that it did not understand what is
meant by only arguments presented in the argument section of the appeal
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 99 |
brief would be considered and that all other arguments are waived.
According to the comment, Rule 41.37(c)(1)(vii), providing that only
arguments presented in the appeal brief and reply brief will be
considered, is sufficient.
Answer. There have been two practical problems with former Rule
41.37(c)(1)(vii). First, notwithstanding the language of the former
rule, appellants erroneously continue to believe that an argument made
anywhere in the record will be considered by the examiner and the Board
during an appeal. Bd.R. 41.37(o)(2) advises appellants that the
argument must appear in the argument section of the appeal brief.
Arguments made in other places in the record will not be considered.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5) precludes incorporating an argument from another
paper by reference. Second, the former rule may give the impression
that an argument may be made for the first time in a reply brief and
will be considered. However, a new argument shall not appear for the
first time in a reply brief. The "no new argument" in reply briefs
policy is implemented in Bd.R. 41.41(g) providing that a reply brief
may respond only to points raised in the examiner's answer.
Comment 59. A comment expressed a concern that a "waiver" of an
argument could mean that the argument could never again be raised in
the Office.
Answer. Any waiver is for the purpose of the appeal. Bd.R. 41.37(o)(2)
has been changed to read: "Appellant waives all other arguments in the
appeal." If an argument is waived in the appeal and the appellant wants
to have the argument considered, the appellant may file a continuing
application or an RCE (request for continued examination).
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3)
Comment 60. A comment asked the question: Is an argument
characterized under this section as "not previously been made to the
examiner" intended to be limited to an entirely new argument, or would
it include any argument which is not repeated to the Board in the
appeal brief exactly as it was presented to the examiner?
Answer. There are at least two kinds of arguments presented in an
appeal brief. The first is an argument which was made to, but rejected
by, the examiner. Generally the argument will appear in a response to a
first Office action or in a response to a final rejection. The second
is an argument where there was no opportunity to present the argument
to the examiner. For example, in an advisory action, the examiner may
make a point for the first time. In responding in the appeal brief to
the examiner's advisory action point, appellant would be presenting a
response for the first time and therefore the argument was not
previously made to the examiner. A response to a new point in an
examiner's answer would be another instance where the argument could
not have been presented to the examiner.
An appeal brief would not have to use the same wording used in a
response to an Office action. Pointing out where an argument was
previously made will permit the Board to efficiently determine the
nature of any dispute between the examiner and the appellant. Appellant
needs some leeway to state the same argument in different words,
particularly where subsequent events in the record (presentation of Rule
132 evidence or additional prior art) make the argument in the appeal
brief more forceful.
Comment 61. A comment suggested that there is no need for an
appellant to indicate whether an argument previously has been made and,
if made, where it was made.
Answer. Indicating whether an argument previously has been made
will help both the examiner and the Board recognize when a new argument
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 100 |
has been made. When the examiner knows that a new argument is made in
the appeal brief, the examiner can address the argument in the
Examiner's Answer and it is less likely that a new argument will be
overlooked.
Comment 62. A comment suggested that a requirement that the
appellant explain why an examiner has erred (Bd.R. 41.37(o)) and a need
to identify a point made in the rejection (Bd.R. 41.37(o)(3)) unduly
handicaps appellant in presenting a case on appeal.
Answer. It is not apparent why the format handicaps an appellant in
presenting its appeal case. After all, the appellant was under an
obligation under Rule 111(b) to point out the "supposed errors" in an
examiner's rejection. If an examiner made a point in a rejection which
an appellant believes is erroneous, the appellant identifies the point
and follows with a discussion of why an error has occurred. For
example: "On page 5, line 8 of the final rejection, the examiner found
that reference A teaches [state what the examiner says was taught] and
therefore one skilled in the art would combine the teaching of
reference A with the teachings of reference B. The examiner is believed
to have erred because reference A does not teach what the examiner says
it teaches. Note that col. 3, lines 3-36 of reference A explains that
[say what reference A says]. The explanation at col. 3, lines 3-36
cannot be reconciled with the examiner's finding because a first
element cannot be both parallel and perpendicular to a second element."
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(4) Through (o)(8)
Comment 63. Several comments questioned the need for Bd.R.
41.37(o)(4) through (o)(8) and suggested that these rules not be enacted.
Answer. The suggestion is adopted. An appellant is required to
point out how an examiner is supposed to have erred. Bd.R. 41.37(o).
Since the emphasis should focus on how the examiner erred, there is no
benefit from having an appellant also comply with the requirements of
Bd.R. 41.37(o)(4) through (o)(8).
Bd.R. 41.37(p)
Comment 64. A comment suggested clarification of the meaning of a
"clean" copy of the claims. The comment assumed that a "clean" copy
means a copy of the pending claims that is "free from underlining and
bracketing and other extraneous information." The comment also asked
whether the status indicators of Rule 121(c) need to be present.
Answer. The comment's assumption of the meaning of "clean" is
correct. An example of a proper way to comply with Bd.R. 41.37(p) in an
application with cancelled claim 1 and pending claims 2-5 is:
Claim 1 (cancelled).
Claim 2 (rejected). An apparatus comprising A, B, and C.
Claim 3 (objected to). The apparatus of claim 2 further comprising D.
Claim 4 (withdrawn from consideration). A method of using an
apparatus comprising A, B, and C comprising the steps of x, y, and z.
Claim 5 (allowed). An apparatus comprising A, B, C, D, and E.
Cancelled claims need not be reproduced.
The only status indicators of interest to the Board are (1)
"rejected," (2) "allowed," (3) "withdrawn from consideration" (4)
"objected to" and (5) "cancelled". However, if an appellant desires
to say "Claim 1 (original - rejected)" or "Claim 2 (amended - objected
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 101 |
to)" or otherwise use the Rule 121(c) status indicators, there is no
objection as long as one of the five status indicators listed above is
set out.
Comment 65. A comment suggested that only the claims on appeal
should be reproduced in the claims section.
Answer. In considering an appeal, it is often useful to know what
has been allowed, objected to, and withdrawn. If a claim has been
allowed or is objected to and the claim has a significant limitation
not present in the claims on appeal, this fact is highly useful and
should be accessible with minimal effort to the examiner and the Board.
Withdrawn claims also provide highly useful information. Often
arguments relate to the subject matter of the withdrawn claims and not
the claims on appeal. Additionally, the fact that an examiner has
restricted out subject matter can be helpful in understanding the
breadth of rejected claims.
Bd.R. 41.37(q)
Comment 66: Several comments suggested that duplication of effort
could be eliminated if Bd.R. 41.37(q) and Bd.R. 41.37(r) are combined.
Answer. The suggestions are being adopted. Bd.R. 41.37(q) and Bd.R.
41.37(r) are being combined in Bd.R. 41.37(r). Bd.R. 41.37(q) will be
reserved.
Comment 67. A comment questioned the need for Bd.R. 41.37(q) and
asked for guidance on the meaning of "limitation."
Answer. As noted in the previous comment, Bd.R. 41.37(q) is being
combined with Bd.R. 41.37(r). Nevertheless, the comment will be
addressed at this point since the comment mentions Bd.R. 41.37(q) and
could not have known that it would be combined with Bd.R. 41.37(r).
Discussion appears in the notice of proposed rulemaking explaining why
Bd.R. 41.37(q) was proposed. See 72 FR at 41477, col. 3 through 41478,
col. 2. It is also worth noting that in the appeal process, Office
personnel considering an appeal include several individuals beyond the
examiner who handled pre-appeal prosecution. Additional Office
personnel include conferees in the Technology Centers and members of
the Board. Additional Office personnel will not be as familiar with the
claims and specification as the examiner handling the application or
reexamination. All Office personnel involved in the appeal process need
to understand the invention on appeal. See also Comment 1. Reading just
a claim may not be enough to get a cogent grasp of the claimed
invention. A claim support section is designed to make the
understanding of claimed inventions efficient. An applicant knows, at
least subjectively, what is intended to be covered by a claim. A
reference to the relevant portion of the specification and drawings
(when there is a drawing) often helps. Examiners often go through the
process of reproducing claims and inserting in the claims references to
the specification and drawing. Applicants often disagree with the
examiner's analysis. Since it is applicant who presents the claim and
applicant knows what is intended, the efficient practice is to have
applicant make the reference to the specification and drawing. What
cannot be included in the claim support section is an argument why a
particular portion of the specification supports the claim limitation.
The comment suggests that there is some confusion about the meaning of
the word "limitation." Since Office actions, responses to Office
actions, and Board and court decisions use the word routinely, it is
somewhat difficult to understand why the word "limitation" is not
generally understood in the context of a patent claim. The Office has
not experienced any difficulty with a corresponding drawing analysis
requirement in contested cases. See Bd.R. 41.110(c).
Bd.R. 41.37(r)
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 102 |
Comment 68. Several comments suggested that the claim support
section (Bd.R. 41.37(q)) and the drawing analysis could be combined
thereby eliminating a need to reproduce claims twice in applications
with a drawing.
Answer. The suggestion is being adopted. Bd.R. 41.37(q) is reserved
and Bd.R. 41.37(r) is changed to incorporate the provisions of both
Bd.R. 41.37(q) and Bd.R. 41.37(r). An example of how an applicant can
comply with both rules in the case where there is a published U.S.
application follows.
An apparatus comprising (1) a first valve {Fig. 2, element 25; ]
0005{time} , (2) a second valve {Fig. 2, element 31; ] 0006{time} ,
(3) a tank {Fig. 3, element 8; ] 0008{time} , (4) a pipe with the first
valve disposed on one end and the tank disposed on the other end {Fig.
3, element 19; ] 0010{time} , and (5) * * *.
If a paragraph of a published U.S. application is long, reference
to the line or lines of the paragraph may be added, e.g. {Fig. 3,
element 19; ] 0010, lines 18-20{time} .
Comment 69. Several comments inquired into whether the claim
support and drawing analysis applies to all independent claims or just
an independent claim being separately argued.
Answer. The answer is all independent claims on appeal and any
dependent claim separately argued. A change is made in the final rule
to continue the practice of Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v) instead of the practice
set out in proposed Bd.R. 41.37(q), (r) and (s). Both Bd.R. 41.37(r)
(claims support and drawing analysis section) and Bd.R. 41.37(s) (means
or step plus function analysis section) have been changed to reflect
the continuation of the practice of Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v).
Comment 70. A comment suggested that a drawing analysis is not
necessary, noting that in a large number of applications "drawings are
fluff inserted because of Office rules, not because they are actually
needed to understanding the invention."
Answer. A drawing analysis, along with the claim support analysis,
is helpful because it assists Office personnel in understanding an
invention. The statute requires a drawing in those cases which admit of
a drawing. 35 U.S.C. 113. If an applicant submits a drawing responsive
to § 113 and takes an appeal, it should not be difficult to prepare
a drawing analysis.
Comment 71. A comment "fully supports" the change proposed by
Bd.R. 41.37(q), which has been combined with Bd.R. 41.37(r). It was
suggested that clarification be given stating that an appellant not be
required to identify every part of a specification which supports a
given limitation.
Answer. The clarification requested is appropriate. A specification
can discuss a limitation in numerous places throughout the
specification. A citation in the claims support section to all
"places" is not necessary when those citations would be cumulative.
What is necessary is a citation to the part or parts of the
specification which will allow the Board to understand where the
claimed limitation has antecedent basis in the specification. A
significant difficulty the Board experiences is when the wording of the
claim (original or amended) is not the same as the wording of the
specification.
The comment made an additional suggestion that the practice of
Bd.R. 41.37(r) be required for all amendments filed during prosecution.
The additional suggestion is beyond the scope of the rule making to the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 103 |
extent it seeks changes to the rules governing pre-appeal examination
practice.
Comment 72. A comment suggested that a drawing analysis is not
necessary, indicating that the summary of the invention provisions of
the former rule adequately serves the purpose which would be served by
the drawing analysis section.
Answer. It is true that in some appeal briefs, the appellant will
describe the invention using the language of the claims along with
parenthetical insertions of element numbers of the drawings. Those
appeal briefs have been very useful, so much so that it has been
determined that it would be useful to have a drawing analysis section
in all cases. Moreover, when there is no drawing analysis section,
appellants should understand that the Board itself will often undertake
to create a drawing analysis. In doing so, the Board may not conclude
that a particular drawing element is what was intended by the
appellant. Having the appellant in the first instance tell the Office
which drawing element corresponds to a claim limitation will avoid
unnecessary misunderstandings.
Comment 73. A comment suggested that if the only claim separately
argued is a dependent claim, the drawing analysis should also annotate
the claims from which the separately argued claims depend.
Answer. The suggestion is adopted, both as to the required drawing
analysis as well as the claim support analysis. The language "(and, if
necessary, any claim from which the claim argued separately depends)"
has been added to Bd.R. 41.37(r) and (s).
Bd.R. 41.37(s)
Comment 74. A comment requested guidance on how one would comply
with Bd.R. 41.37(s).
Answer. An example, based on a published U.S. application with a
drawing follows.
An apparatus comprising (1) a first valve, (2) a second valve, (3)
a tank, (4) means for connecting the first valve to the tank {Fig. 3,
element 19; ] 0010{time} and (5) * * *.
Comment 75. A comment suggested that Bd.R. 41.37(s) should be
clarified to state whether means or step plus function limitations in
just contested claims need to be analyzed or whether the analysis is
necessary for all claims, including non-contested claims.
Answer. A means or step plus function analysis is necessary only in
contested claims. The rule specifies that the means or step plus
function analysis is necessary "[f]or each independent claim involved
in the appeal and each dependent claim argued separately." A contested
claim is a claim for which separate patentability arguments are
presented, e.g., claims 1 and 4 over the Jones reference mentioned in
Comment 49.
Comment 76. A comment "supports" Bd.R. 41.37(s), but suggested
that it be made clear that there is more than one way to have a "means
plus function" claim.
Answer. There is a presumption that a limitation reciting "means"
for performing a function or a step is a limitation within the meaning
of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112. However, as the comment points
out, "program instructions for - - ," "component for - - " or
"module for - - " may also be means plus function claims. In such a
case, compliance with Bd.R. 41.37(s) would be necessary. The comment
also indirectly suggested that appellants may try to sidestep the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 104 |
question of whether particular language is "means" language. The
consequence of failing to identify "means" language as "means or
step plus function language" may mean that the limitation will be
construed to cover any element or step which performs the function.
Bd.R. 41.37(t)
Comment 77. Several comments were received questioning the need for
an evidence section. According to the comments, the Office already has
the material which an appellant would include in an evidence section.
Answer. The comments have merit. As a result of comments, the
Office has decided to insert a definition of the Record in Bd.R. 41.30.
The Record is the official file of the application or reexamination on
appeal. The appeal will be decided on the Record consistent with the
arguments presented in the appeal brief and reply brief and
observations made in the examiner's answer. Nevertheless, the Office
has decided to continue current practice of requiring a significantly
more limited evidence section. See Rule 41.37(c)(1)(ix), requiring an
evidence appendix. Under Bd.R. 41.37(t), the evidence section is
limited to (1) affidavits and declarations, if any, and attachments to
declarations, relied upon by appellant before the examiner, (2) other
evidence, if any, relied upon by the appellant before the examiner and
filed prior to the date of the notice of appeal, and (3) evidence
relied upon by the appellant and admitted into the file pursuant to
Bd.R. 41.33(d) of this subpart. The documents would be included in the
evidence section only if they are relied upon in the appeal. Often
numerous documents are relied upon during prosecution leading up to an
appeal. The evidence section will eliminate any doubt about which
documents an appellant intends to rely on in support of the appeal.
While the scope of the evidence section is being narrowed considerably,
the Office is still concerned with a potential problem that there can
be confusion over a citation to a particular piece of evidence in the
Record. The problem is not new with the image file wrapper (IFW)
system. Neither pre-IFW paper files nor IFW files have consecutively
numbered pages to which applicants, examiners, and the Board may refer.
Accordingly, in presenting appeal briefs and reply briefs, appellant
will want to ensure that a reference to a document in the Record is
absolutely identifiable. The best identification is (a) the style of
the document and (b) the date it was filed in the Office, e.g.,
AMENDMENT UNDER RULE 116, filed 04 February 2008, or FINAL REJECTION
mailed 04 February 2008.
Comment 78. A comment suggested that an appellant should be
authorized to include in the evidence section a clean copy of a
document which may be poorly reproduced in "the current file."
Answer. Nothing in Bd.R. 41.37(t) would preclude an appellant from
doing so. Presentation of clear documents is encouraged.
Comment 79. A comment suggested that an appellant be permitted to
refer to PAIR (Public Application Information Retrieval) instead of
providing an evidence section.
Answer. The suggestion is not adopted. The examiners and the Board
use the IFW file to examine applications and decide appeals.
Accordingly, an appellant will want to refer to documents in a precise
manner consistent with the examples set out in Comment 77.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(1)
Comment 80. A comment asked how pages of the evidence section are
to be numbered.
Answer. Any one of the following numbering systems would be
acceptable: (1) A number, e.g., "31", at the center of the bottom of
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 105 |
the page or (2) "Page x of y" at the center of the bottom of the page
or (3) "Page x" at the center of the bottom of the page. An appeal
brief, including its sections, should be consecutively page-numbered
beginning with "1" on the first page and continuing with consecutive
numbers through the last page of the brief. Use of consecutive numbers
will permit appellants, the examiner, and the Board to make precise
references to the appeal brief and the reply brief, including sections
of the appeal brief.
Comment 81. A comment suggested that line numbers in appeal briefs
and other papers are not necessary.
Answer. Line numbers are highly useful within the Office. While
line numbers will not be required, appellants are encouraged to use
line numbers. When line numbers are used, they may appear inside the
left margin. Why are line numbers encouraged? With a telework program
in place within the Office, many members of the Board work remotely a
considerable portion of the time. Board members communicate with other
Board members through a telephone and computer system. The computer
system permits all involved in a telephone conference to access the
record. Discussion by phone is simplified if one Board member can refer
another Board member to a page and line of a brief. Modern word
processors permit adding line numbers to pages with minimal difficulty.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(2)
Comment 82. A comment suggested that 1 1/2 line-spacing be
authorized in place of double spacing.
Answer. The suggestion is adopted-in-part to the extent that block
quotes may be presented in 1 1/2 line-spacing. The last line of Bd.R.
41.37(v)(2) has been changed to read: "Block quotations may be 1 1/2
line-spacing." As a general proposition, an appellant may wish to
avoid long block quotes from documents in the record. Instead, for
factual material (as opposed to incorporating an argument by
reference), the appellant may state the fact and refer the reader to
the page and line or paragraph of the document relied upon.
Comment 83. A comment asked: Can line spacing greater than double-
spacing (e.g., triple-spacing) be used in a brief?
Answer. No.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(3)
Comment 84. A comment asked: Can a header appear within the top margin?
Answer. No. While Bd.R. 41.37(v)(3) has been reserved, a header
cannot appear in the top margin.
Comment 85. A comment asked: What is the difference between
"clean" and "readable"?
Answer. While Bd.R. 41.37(v)(3) has been reserved, Rule 52(a)(iv)
requires papers in the file to be "plainly and legibly written."
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(4)
Comment 86. Several comments suggested that a font size equivalent
to 14 point Times New Roman is too large. Some comments suggested a
font size equivalent to Times New Roman of 12 point referring to Rule
52(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) which states a preference for a 12 point
font size. It was observed that a 12 point font size would provide some
relief from the 25-page limit required by other provisions of the rules
as proposed.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 106 |
Answer. The suggestion to amend Bd.R. 41.37(v)(4) is not being
adopted, although the reference in Bd.R. 41.37(v)(4) to Times New Roman
is being deleted. The Rule 52(b)(2)(ii) preference for a font size of
12 (equal to pica type) and 0.125 inch high capital letters was added
in 2005 to supplement a requirement (added in 2001) that letters be at
least 0.08 inch high (equal to elite type). Prior to 2001, Rule 52
merely required that papers be prepared on a typewriter or mechanical
printer which inherently limited the font size to either pica or elite.
The font sizes specified in Rule 52(b)(2)(ii) are a vestige of earlier
times and do not meet the current needs of the Board. The Board no
longer physically handles papers prepared by applicants. Rather, since
2006, all papers are handled as scanned images. The quality of any font
degrades as it passes through scanning and other electronic processing
(e.g., photocopying by applicant, filing by fax, scanning for image
storage, and scanning the stored image again for optical character
recognition). Smaller fonts present a particular problem after original
papers pass through numerous levels of electronic image processing. A
14-point font size in the original paper will provide better results given
the current technology used for handling applicants' papers.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5)
Comment 87. Several comments suggested that the 25-page limit is
not sufficient to permit an appellant to properly present its case in
the appeal brief. Some of those comments indicated that final
rejections exceeding 25 pages had been received and suggested that when
a final rejection exceeds 25 pages an appellant should be able to file
an appeal brief where the statement of facts and argument is the same
length as the final rejection.
Answer. Initially it will be noted that many administrative and
judicial tribunals have page limits on briefs. An informal survey of
the argument and fact portions of appeal briefs in appeals before the
Board conducted prior to the notice of proposed rule making revealed
that less than ten (10) percent of the appeal briefs exceeded 25 pages.
An informal survey of 135 briefs taken after the notice of proposed
rule making revealed that less than three (3) percent of the argument
and fact portion of appeal briefs exceeded 30 pages. Eighty-three (83)
percent of those appeal briefs had less than 17 pages of argument.
Accordingly, Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5) addresses appeal brief length in a
relatively small subgroup of appeal briefs which reach the Board. Even
in appeal briefs which do not exceed 25 pages, the Board has found that
many briefs contain discussion which is probably not necessary in an
appeal brief before the PTO. For example, appeal briefs often contain
lengthy sections explaining legal principles applicable to rejections
under § 103. Appellants should assume that the examiner and the
Board are aware of the basic principles governing evaluation of § 103
rejections, e.g., those set out in KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966). The same is true for other routine rejections based on
§ 102 and § 112. For the most part, lengthy expositions in an
appeal on applicable legal principles are not necessary in cases before
the Board. Eliminating expositions on the law will also reduce the size
of the table of authorities (Bd.R. 41.37(j)).
An appellant should review any proposed appeal brief to determine
if it has unnecessary "boilerplate" language which does not address
why an examiner is believed to have erred. After setting out the facts
(Bd.R. 41.37(n)), an argument section of an appeal brief should present
arguments in the following format: "On page 4, lines 5-8 of the final
rejection, the examiner found that * * *. The examiner's finding is not
supported by the evidence because * * *." "On page 5, lines 10-11 of
the final rejection, the examiner held that one skilled in the art
would have found it obvious to combine A with B. The examiner's
conclusion is erroneous because * * *." "On page 3, lines 2-6 of the
final rejection, the examiner found that * * *. The examiner's finding,
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 107 |
while correct, is not relevant to the § 103 rejection because * * *."
Generally while discussion to "educate" the Board on the
technology involved is helpful, it should not appear in the argument.
Rather, it can and should appear in the statement of facts (Bd.R.
41.37(n)), claims support and drawing analysis section (Bd.R.
41.37(r)), and the means or step plus function section (Bd.R.
41.37(s)). In the event the Board believes that it needs more
information with respect to the nature of an invention, it has
authority to ask for further briefing (Bd.R. 41.50(f)).
Some have suggested that the statement of facts (Bd.R. 41.37(n))
should not be included in the 25-page limit. In motions practice in
interferences, there was a time when there was a page limit for
motions, including a statement of facts. At the suggestion of the bar,
the statement of facts was excluded from the page limit. The result has
been lengthy statements of fact which often (1) include unnecessary
facts, (2) are not helpful to the Board and (3) burden the opponent.
The Office does not intend to repeat the failed experiment in
interferences with appeal briefs.
In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, numerous comments
suggested that a 25-page limit would restrict an appellant's ability to
present its case. Taking into account the analysis set out above and
the number of concerns expressed, the page limit will be increased to
(1) 30 pages for appeal briefs (Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5)) and (2) 20 pages for
reply briefs (Bd.R. 41.41(d)). An appellant needing more pages can
obtain relief by a petition under Bd.R. 41.3 which shows good cause why
additional pages are needed.
The 30 pages do not include (1) any statement of the real party in
interest (Bd.R. 41.37(f)), (2) statement of related cases (Bd.R.
41.37(g)), (3) jurisdictional statement (Bd.R. 41.37(h)), (4) table of
contents (Bd.R. 41.37(i)), (5) table of authorities (Bd.R. 41.37(j)),
(6) status of amendments (Bd.R. 41.37(l)), (7) claims section (Bd.R.
41.37(p)), (8) claims support and drawing analysis section (Bd.R.
41.37(r)), (9) means or step plus function analysis section (Bd.R.
41.37(s)), (10) evidence section (Bd.R. 41.37(t)), and (11) signature
block. It should be noted that Bd.R. 41.37(k) and Bd.R. 41.37(q) have
been eliminated and changed to "reserved". Bd.R. 41.37(v)(5) has been
changed to explicitly set out what is not included in the 30-page limit.
Comment 88. A comment suggested that 10 additional pages be
authorized by rule for each additional rejection beyond a first
rejection.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. Rather, increasing the
page limit from 25 to 30 serves the function of authorizing an
applicant to present an additional argument.
Bd.R. 41.37(v)(6)
Comment 89. A comment asked: If the correspondence address on the
appeal brief differs from that "of record," which will the Board use?
Answer. The correspondence address in the appeal brief.
Comment 90. A comment asked: Must appellant correspond with the
Office in appeal matters via fax? If not, why is a fax number required?
Answer. The fax and e-mail addresses are required by the rule so
that the Board may easily communicate with counsel. Sometimes it is
necessary for a paralegal to contact the office of counsel to obtain
clarification on a particular matter. Examples include (1)
clarification of a patent identified in a specification by an incorrect
patent number, (2) a request for a copy of a brief in digitized form,
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 108 |
(3) attempting to schedule a date for oral argument, and (4) a request
for a legible copy of a document previously submitted by an applicant.
Comment 91. A comment suggested the possibility of a "mini-appeal
brief" for certain appeals.
Answer. The suggestion has not been adopted. See Comment 33 for
additional discussion.
Bd.R. 41.39
Comment 92. Several comments suggested that the rules should
include a provision for the content and nature of the examiner's
answer. Other comments suggested that a time-limit should be placed on
the examiner for entering an examiner's answer. Still other comments
suggested that the format of the examiner's answer should be the same
as the format for an appeal brief.
Answer. While there can be rare exceptions, generally the rules are
not the place for the Director to set out administrative practice for
examiners and other Office employees. The content and nature of an
examiner's answer, and the time within which it is to be filed, are best
left for administrative instructions or the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure.
Bd.R. 41.39(a)
Comment 92A. A comment suggested that the terminology "new ground
of rejection" be retained in the proposed rules.
Answer. The suggestion is being adopted.
Comment 92B. A comment expressed concern that there is a very
limited ability to reply to a new ground of rejection in an examiner's
answer because the appeal must continue on the current record.
Answer. The rules are being amended to eliminate new grounds of
rejection in an examiner's answer.
Bd.R. 41.41
Comment 93. A comment suggested that an appellant should be able to
present a new argument in a reply brief where the importance of the
argument is not made apparent until a review of the examiner's answer.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. The same comment
reveals that there are delays in resolving appeals and that the rules
should be designed to eliminate those delays. One delay under the
current practice is the perceived ability of an appellant to present a
new argument in a reply brief. If a new point is made in the examiner's
answer, then the appellant may fully respond to that new point apart
from any argument in the appeal brief. However, prosecution of an
appeal should not be delayed through presentation of new arguments
which reasonably could have been made in an appeal brief.
Comment 93A. A comment suggested that when presenting an amendment
in a reply brief that an appellant should be given an unconditional
waiver from any rule limiting continuations.
Answer. The suggestion raises a matter beyond the scope of the
notice of proposed rule making and will not be adopted.
Bd.R. 41.43
Comment 94. Several comments suggested that an examiner not be
allowed to reopen prosecution after a reply brief (see Bd.R. 41.41) is
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 109 |
filed. According to the comment, many practitioners believe the
practice of "reopening" prosecution "is already abused" by some
examiners. Some examiners are said to have re-opened prosecution "over
and over again to allow them yet further and further opportunities at
the bat." One comment identified an application in which the examiner
is said to have re-opened prosecution "four times."
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. Assuming, without
deciding, that the comment is correct, then there is a plausible basis
for holding that the conduct described might be characterized as an
abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not solved by an
amendment to a rule. It is solved on a case-by-case basis via a
petition. Alternatively, if an applicant believes the examination
process is being abused, the applicant should call the matter to the
attention of the SPE (supervisory patent examiner) or the Director of
the Technology Center in which the application is being examined.
Comment 95. Several comments suggested that a provision be added to
Bd.R. 41.43 to preclude a new ground of rejection in a supplemental
examiner's answer.
Answer. The suggestion is adopted to the extent that a new ground
of rejection will no longer appear in an examiner's answer. There is no
supplemental examiner's answer replying to an appellant's reply brief.
It should be noted that Bd.R. 41.43 (supplemental examiner's answer)
and Bd.R. 41.44 (supplemental reply) are now reserved.
Bd.R. 41.47(c)
Comment 96. A comment asked whether the time for filing a request
for oral argument runs from entry of the examiner's answer or the
examiner's supplemental answer.
Answer. Since there will no longer be an examiner's supplemental
answer, the time for requesting oral argument is from the date the
examiner's answer (Bd.R. 41.39) is mailed.
Bd.R. 41.47(g)
Comment 97. A comment suggested that individuals transcribing an
oral hearing should be presumed to be competent and seems to question
the need for a list of terms. With respect to the language "unusual
terms," the same comment asked: Unusual to whom?
Answer. The rules authorize a list of terms to assist the court
reporter. Often members of the Board supply a list so that the court
reporter can prepare a more accurate transcript. Generally court
reporters are not scientists familiar with technical terms. Sometimes,
the names of patentees and others mentioned in the record (e.g., an
affidavit) are difficult. The Board has sufficient confidence in
practitioners being able to recognize when a list of terms may help a
court reporter.
Bd.R. 41.47(k)
Comment 98. A comment suggested that the rule should explicitly
authorize use of enlarged visual aids suitable for placing on an easel.
Answer. Enlarged documents suitable for use on easel can be used at
oral hearings, provided the required four copies (preferably 8 1/2 x
11; one for each judge and one to be added to the Record) are provided
to the Board.
Comment 99. Several comments suggested that three-dimensional
objects illustrative of the claimed invention or the prior art be
permitted as visual aids at oral argument.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 110 |
Answer. The suggestions are adopted to the extent that an appellant
may use as a visual aid documents and evidence in the Record or a model
or exhibit presented for demonstration purposes during an interview
with the examiner. An applicant should be sure that the Record makes
clear that the model or exhibit was shown to the examiner. See Rule 133
and MPEP 608.03(a) (8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006). For example, an
applicant may wish to place a photograph of the object shown to the
examiner in the application file. In addition to using a three-
dimensional object as a visual aid, an appellant may provide copies of
the photograph to the Board at oral hearing.
Bd.R. 41.50
Comment 100. A comment asked: How does an appellant "signal" the
Board that proceedings on a remand (Bd.R. 41.50(b)) are concluded?
Answer. The rule provides the answer: (1) Request that prosecution
be reopened (Bd.R. 41.50(b)(1)) or (2) request to re-docket the appeal
(Bd.R. 41.50(b)(2)).
Bd.R. 41.51(f)
Comment 101. A comment suggested that the time period for response
to an order of the Board under Bd.R. 41.51(f) should be extendable by
petition under Bd.R. 41.3 so that an appellant need not be "forced to
employ the unwieldy procedure of petitioning under" Rule 183.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. Experience under Bd.R.
41.51(f), and its predecessor rule, shows that appellants almost always
timely respond to orders of the Board. The policy for setting times to
respond to orders of the Board under Bd.R. 41.51(f) was set out in the
supplementary information in the notice of proposed rulemaking (72 FR
at 41,482, col. 2). Historically, there has not been a need
for extensions of time. Accordingly, there is no need to authorize, or
encourage, requests for extension of times by petition under Bd.R.
41.3. Should a circumstance develop where an appellant has an
extraordinary reason for needing an extension, a petition may be filed
under Rule 183 addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
Bd.R. 41.52
Comment 102. A comment was received that the word "rehearing" in
the title and text of Bd.R. 41.52 should be changed to
"reconsideration." According to the commentator, the word
"rehearing" implies, incorrectly, that an oral hearing may be held.
Answer. The comment is correct in indicating that a "rehearing"
under 35 U.S.C. 6 and Bd.R. 41.52 does not mean an oral hearing will be
held. The word "rehearing" is used in the rule because it is the word
used in the statute authorizing the Board to grant a "rehearing." 35
U.S.C. 6(b).
Bd.R. 41.52(d)
Comment 103. Several comments suggested that a change be made to
Bd.R. 41.52(d) and (f) because it may not be appropriate for an
appellant to indicate in a petition for rehearing filed pursuant to
Bd.R. 41.50(d)(2) to discuss what points the Board may have
misapprehended or overlooked.
Answer. The suggestion is not being adopted. If an appellant is
dissatisfied with a "new ground of rejection" under Bd.R. 41.50(d)
and the appellant elects to ask the Board for a rehearing (as opposed
to further consideration by the examiner), then it is entirely
appropriate for the appellant to advise the Board what fact or issue of
law was misapprehended or overlooked. In filing a request for
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 111 |
rehearing, the appellant shall rely only on the record on appeal.
Comment 104. A comment suggested that a request for rehearing
should be able to address a new point made by the Board in its opinion
in support of a decision on appeal.
Answer. Bd.R. 41.52 should not be understood to preclude the
presentation in a request for rehearing of an argument responding to a
new point made by the Board. The argument in the request for rehearing
would be that the Board misapprehended the point.
Bd.R. 41.56
Comment 105. A comment claimed that Bd.R. 41.56 gives the Board
authority to "assert" that an argument in an appeal brief is
frivolous (see Bd.R. 41.56(a)(2)) or hold a fact to have been
established (see Bd.R. 41.56(b)(2)). The comment goes on to state that
it is not clear how an applicant "appeals" from such an order other
than to the courts.
Answer. The jurisdiction of the Board is to review adverse
decisions of an examiner. 35 U.S.C. 134. If in the course of the
review, the Board enters a sanction and holds a fact to have been
established and based on that fact a rejection is affirmed, the
applicant would have judicial review of the Board's decision in the
Federal Circuit (35 U.S.C. 141-144) or the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (35 U.S.C. 145). If in the course of the appeal, a
sanction is entered by anyone other than a panel of the Board, an
applicant would have administrative review by petition.
Comment 106. Several comments questioned the need for Bd.R. 41.56.
Answer. Bd.R. 41.56 sets out conduct which is detrimental to the
efficient administration of ex parte appeals before the Office. The
comments suggest that Bd.R. 41.56 fails to give adequate notice of what
might be considered "misconduct." A similar rule has existed in
interference cases. Bd.R. 41.128. Sanctions are very rare in
interference cases. The presence of Bd.R. 41.128 advises practitioners
and others with respect to behavior which is not consistent with
efficient administration of interference cases. In like manner, Bd.R.
41.56 does the same for ex parte appeals. The rule also provides notice
of the nature of a sanction in the event there has been a violation of
the rules or an order entered in an appeal. It is expected that
sanctions will be rare in ex parte appeals. The comments note that the
"standards" for whether a sanction should be imposed are
"subjective" and that sanctions will be entered as a matter of
discretion by the Office. The sanction provisions of other tribunals
are equally subjective and are entered (or not entered) as a matter of
discretion. Courts and other agencies have administered sanction rules
without any apparent difficulty.
Comment 107. A comment asked whether Rule 11 of the Fed. R. Civ. P.
and case law construing or applying the rule are relevant to the
definition of "misleading" and "frivolous" in Bd.R. 41.56.
Answer. Both words will be construed under Bd.R. 41.56 according to
their ordinary meaning. Precedent of a court may or may not be helpful.
The terms will be interpreted in the context of the appeals rules. Cf.
FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc. v. CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., 479
F.3d 825, 829 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the TTAB has discretion to reasonably
interpret the meaning of "excusable neglect" in the context of its
own regulations, citing Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512
U.S. 504, 512 (1994) (an agency's interpretation of its own regulation
is given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or
inconsistent with the regulation)).
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 112 |
Comment 108. A comment noted that the sanctions rule (Bd.R. 41.56)
does not provide for "an appeal" and therefore constitutes a denial
of due process.
Answer. If a sanction is entered prior to a final decision of the
Board, review is available by petition and subsequently in a court to
the extent authorized by Congress. As noted earlier, a sanction having
an effect on the merits is reviewable along with the merits in the
Federal Circuit (35 U.S.C. 141) or the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (35 U.S.C. 145).
Comment 109. A comment suggested that the sanctions are unnecessary
because the Office has not shown that any of the sanctions are
necessary or have been used.
Answer. The need for a sanction rule is based on experience in
appeals over the years. A sanction rule provides important public
notice of behavior which is prejudicial to the effective administration
of appeals within the Office. The sanction to be applied in a
particular case will depend on the facts. Generally, sanctions are not
applied without giving an appellant an opportunity to explain and
justify its behavior.
A sanction of not entering a docket notice may be appropriate where
an appellant repeatedly declines to comply with procedural requirements
to perfect an appeal.
An order holding certain facts to have been established or from
contesting a certain issue might be appropriate where an appellant is
asked (Bd.R. 41.50(f)) to brief certain matters and avoids directly
answering specific questions posed by the Board.
An order expunging a paper might be entered where an appellant
repeatedly fails to file a paper complying with the rules.
An order excluding evidence might be appropriate where an appellant
refuses to properly file evidence or where knowingly "false" evidence
is presented.
Other sanctions may be appropriate depending on the situation,
including sanctions not specifically listed in Bd.R. 41.56(b). The
expectation is that sanctions will rarely be necessary. On the other
hand, having notice in the rules of possible sanctions can avoid
arguments by someone that the Office has not given notice of its intent
to take action against an appellant when necessary.
Rulemaking Considerations
Administrative Procedure Act
The changes in the rules relate solely to the procedure to be
followed in filing and prosecuting an ex parte appeal to the Board.
Therefore, these rule changes involve interpretive rules, or rules of
agency practice and procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Prior notice
and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (or any other law). See Bachow Communications, Inc. v.
F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an
application process are "rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice" and exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's notice
and comment requirement); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543,
1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the rules of practice promulgated under the
authority of former 35 U.S.C. 6(a) (now in 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)) are not
substantive rules (to which the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act apply)); Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d
1211, 1215 (D.D.C. 1995) ("[i]t is extremely doubtful whether any of
the rules formulated to govern patent or trade-mark practice are other
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 113 |
than `interpretive rules, general statements of policy, * * *
procedure, or practice' "(quoting C.W. Ooms, The United States Patent
Office and the Administrative Procedure Act, 38 Trademark Rep. 149, 153
(1948))); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Univ. of Washington, 334 F.3d 1264, 1269
n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office certifies to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration that this final rulemaking, Rules
of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex
Parte Appeals (RIN 0651-AC12), will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is amending
its rules in 37 CFR part 41 governing prosecution in ex parte appeals
at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board). There are fee
changes associated with the final rules.
The changes in this final rule involve interpretive rules, or rules
of agency practice and procedure, and prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (or
any other law). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public
comment are not required for the changes proposed in this rule, a
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is also not required for the
changes proposed in this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603. Nevertheless, the
Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, in order to solicit public participation with regard
to this rule package.
In response to the notice of proposed rule making, a comment was
submitted that contended that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is
required under 5 U.S.C. 603. Because these rules are procedural, they
are not required to be published for notice and comment. The Office
chose, however, to publish these rules for comment prior to adoption of
the final rules in order to request valuable input from the public.
The primary changes in this rule are: (1) The requirements for an
appeal brief include new sections for jurisdictional statement, table
of contents, table of authorities, statement of facts, new format for
arguments in the appeal brief and for claim support and drawing
analysis section and means or step plus function analysis section in
the appendix of the appeal brief, new section for table of contents in
the evidence section of the appendix, new format in 14-point font, and
30-page limit for the grounds of rejection, statement of facts, and
argument sections, (2) the requirements for a reply brief include new
sections for table of contents, table of authorities, statement of
additional facts, new format for arguments in the reply brief, new
format in 14-point font, and 20-page limit for the statement of
additional facts and argument sections, (3) the requirements for a
request for rehearing include new sections for table of contents, table
of authorities, new format for arguments in the request for rehearing,
new format in 14-point font, and 10-page limit for the argument
section, (4) new grounds of rejection are no longer permitted in an
examiner's answer, (5) the examiner's response to a reply brief is
eliminated, (6) petitions to exceed the page limit for an appeal brief,
reply brief or request for rehearing are made under Rule 41.3 which
requires a $400 fee, (7) petitions for an extension of time to file a
reply brief, request for oral hearing, or request for rehearing are
made under Rule 41.3 which requires a $400 fee, and (8) a list of
technical terms or unusual words to be provided to the transcriber at
the oral hearing. The rules described in (1) through (5) and (8) will
apply to all appeal briefs filed with the Board. The rules described in
(6) and (7) will apply only to those applicants filing certain
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 114 |
petitions.
Appeal Brief (1)
Little additional cost is associated with the new appeal brief
requirements.
The jurisdictional statement of the appeal brief is a highly
structured, fact-based paragraph of a maximum of 5 to 6 simple
sentences. It is estimated that this section would add 10 to 15 minutes
to the preparation of the brief. Assuming that the jurisdictional
statement is prepared by a law firm staff member at the paralegal
level, at an average billing rate of $150 an hour, the added cost for
preparation of the jurisdictional statement is $25 to $37.50. In some
cases, however, the preparation of the jurisdictional statement will
result in a substantial time and cost savings to the applicant. For
instance, if in the preparation of the jurisdictional statement it
becomes apparent that the application is abandoned, the applicant can
take advantage of available revival remedies at an early date and avoid
an unnecessary dismissal of the appeal.
The table of contents and table of authorities sections add very
little additional cost to the preparation of the appeal brief. Modern
word processors make the creation of a table of contents or a table of
authorities fairly easy when headings are used in a document. The
current rules and the proposed rules require the use of headings in the
appeal brief. Assuming that virtually all applicants create their
documents with a word processor, it would add 5 to 10 minutes to the
preparation of the brief to insert the table of contents and table of
authorities. Assuming that the table of contents and table of
authorities are prepared by a law firm staff member at the paralegal
level, at an average billing rate of $150 an hour, the added cost for
preparation of these two tables is $12.50 to $25. It should be noted
that in many appeals pending before the Board, the briefs contain a
table of contents or table of authorities even though these sections
are not currently required.
The statement of facts section will not add to the appeal brief
preparation cost and in many cases it will be a small cost savings.
While the statement of facts is a new section in the final rule, the
information contained in this section is part of the argument section
of appeal briefs submitted under the current rule. By separating the
facts from the argument, the applicant needs only to list a fact once
and refer to it in the argument. Under current practice, applicant
often times repeats a fact if using it to support multiple arguments.
Thus, in many cases the applicant will save time by not having to repeat
a fact. Furthermore, the requirement for a fact to reference a specific
portion of the Record does not impact the appeal brief preparation cost
as it is a requirement under the current rule.
Under the final rule, the argument section of the appeal brief has
a new requirement for applicant to identify where an argument was made
in the first instance to the examiner or state that it is a new
argument. It is estimated that this requirement would add 10 minutes to
the preparation of the brief. Assuming that the argument section is
prepared by a law firm staff member at the attorney level, at an
average billing rate of $310 an hour, the added cost for preparation of
the argument section is $51.67. Compliance with this requirement should
be relatively easy. An applicant can take an appeal following the
second rejection of the claims by the examiner. In most cases, this
will mean that the argument was made to the examiner either in response
to a first Office action or in response to a second Office action,
likely a final rejection. Additionally, identification of whether an
argument in an appeal brief is "new" will enable senior Patent Corps
personnel to evaluate the new argument and determine whether a
rejection should be withdrawn. This will provide a savings to applicant
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 115 |
in one of two ways: (1) Eliminating at an early stage appeals which
should not go forward or (2) making appeals which go forward capable of
prompt resolution. The identification of where an argument is made or
if it is a new argument prevents arguments from being overlooked by the
examiner and allows senior Patent Corps personnel to more readily
assess all the arguments. If it is decided, based on the arguments in
the appeal brief, that the claims are allowable, the applicant saves
the time of a full appeal to the Board and waiting for a decision. The
applicant also saves the possible expense of a request for oral hearing
before the Board. In those appeals which are presented to the Board,
the arguments in the case will be readily identifiable for the panel to
review in deciding the issues. This allows the panel to be more
efficient in their decision making and consequently reducing the
pendency of applications at the Board. By aiding in increasing the
efficiency of panel review, the applicant will reduce the time it takes
to receive a Board decision.
The claim support and drawing analysis section and the means or
step plus function analysis section are analogous to the current
summary of the claimed subject matter section in the appeal brief. The
information required for these two newly titled sections is the same as
that required by the current rules. The final rule, however, is
explicit as to the format to be followed in these sections. The current
rule requires an explanation of the subject matter, whereas the final
rule sets forth the precise format to be used in mapping claim
limitations to the support and description of the limitations in the
specification and drawings. Bd. R. 41.37(r) and (s). The current rule
leaves the format for the explanation of the claimed subject matter
open to interpretation by the applicant. Rule 41.37(c)(1)(v). The final
rule provides a standardized, easy to follow format for these sections.
By following the prescribed format of the final rule, the applicant
will save time in not having to create their own format to explain the
claimed subject matter. Moreover, the final rule format is expected to
reduce the number of applications returned to the examiner because the
brief is not compliant with the explanation of the claimed subject
matter section of the rule. Under the current rules, it is not uncommon
for a case to be returned to the examiner because of deficiencies in
the summary of the claimed subject matter section of the appeal brief.
When a case is returned to the examiner for correction of a non-
compliant brief, the applicant must prepare and file a corrected brief.
This delays the applicant's appeal and costs the applicant money to
prepare a compliant brief. By following the clear, standardized format
in the final rule for the claim support and drawing analysis section
and means or step plus function section, applicants can prevent a
return of their application on either or both of these bases. This will
save the applicant the time and expense incurred for filing a corrected
appeal brief. The claim support and drawing analysis section and the
means or step plus function analysis section will not add cost to the
appeal brief and will provide a savings to applicants in some cases.
As reasoned above, for the table of contents and table of
authorities sections, the preparation of a table of contents for the
evidence section of the appeal brief appendix will add about five
minutes to the time for preparing the brief. Assuming that the table of
contents is prepared by a law firm staff member at the paralegal level,
at an average billing rate of $150 an hour, the added cost for
preparation of the table of contents is $12.50.
The final rule requires the font for the appeal brief to be 14
point in size. Assuming that virtually all applicants create their
documents with a word processor, no additional time or cost is incurred
in the selection of a 14-point font for the document.
The final rule sets forth a 30-page limit on the combined length of
grounds of rejection, statement of facts, and argument sections of the
appeal brief. This limit will not have any economic impact on
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 116 |
approximately 97% of applicants. A recent survey of appeal briefs
revealed that less than 3% of appeal briefs filed exceeded 30 pages in
the current grounds of rejection and argument sections.
Reply Brief (2)
Very little additional economic impact is associated with the new
reply brief requirements.
As set forth above in the discussion of the table of contents and
table of authorities in the appeal brief, the creation of these
sections will add only 5 to 10 minutes to the preparation of the reply
brief. Assuming that the table of contents and table of authorities are
prepared by a law firm staff member at the paralegal level, at an
average billing rate of $150 an hour, the added cost for preparation of
the jurisdictional statement is $12.50 to $25. It should also be noted
that in a recent survey of cases on appeal at the Board, only 68% of
the cases contained reply briefs. This added cost applies only to cases
in which a reply brief is filed.
For the reasons listed above in the discussion of the statement of
facts in the appeal brief, the statement of additional facts in the
reply brief will not have any economic impact on the preparation of the
reply brief and in many cases the applicant will save time.
Under the final rule, the argument section of the reply brief has a
new requirement that arguments be responsive to points made in the
examiner's answer; otherwise the argument will not be considered and
will be treated as waived. This requirement does not impose any
additional economic burden on the applicant. It only makes clear what
arguments in the reply brief will be considered by the Board. It saves
the applicant the time and expense of preparing arguments that will not
be considered.
The final rule requires the font for the reply brief to be 14 point
in size. Assuming that virtually all applicants create their documents
with a word processor, no additional time or cost is incurred in the
selection of a 14-point font for the document.
The final rule sets forth a 20-page limit on the combined length of
the statement of additional facts and argument sections of the reply
brief. A recent survey of reply briefs revealed that less than 1% of
reply briefs filed exceeded 20 pages.
Request for Rehearing (3)
With regard to the third change, very little additional economic
impact is associated with the new request for rehearing requirements.
As set forth above in the discussion of the table of contents and
table of authorities in the appeal brief, the creation of these
sections will add 5 to 10 minutes to the preparation of the request for
rehearing. Assuming that the table of contents and table of authorities
are prepared by a law firm staff member at the paralegal level, at an
average billing rate of $150 an hour, the added cost for preparation of
the jurisdictional statement is $12.50 to $25. It should also be noted
that in Fiscal Year 2007, there were only 123 requests for rehearing of
a Board decision filed at the USPTO, out of 3,485 Board decisions
rendered. This added cost applies only to cases in which a request for
rehearing is filed.
Under the final rule, the argument section of the request for
rehearing has a new format requirement that requires the applicant to
explicitly identify in the Record the point that applicant believes was
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Under current Rule
41.52(a)(1), applicants are required to "state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 117 |
Board." Citation to the Record in compliance with the final rule will
add 5 to 10 minutes to the preparation of a request for rehearing.
Assuming that the argument section is prepared by a law firm staff
member at the attorney level, at an average billing rate of $310 an
hour, the added cost for preparation of the argument section is $25.83
to $51.67.
The final rule requires the font for the reply brief to be 14 point
in size. Assuming that virtually all applicants create their documents
with a word processor, no additional time or cost is incurred in the
selection of a 14-point font for the document.
The final rule sets forth a 10-page limit for the argument section
of the request for rehearing. This limit will have no economic impact
on most applicants. A survey of the request for rehearing in 92
rehearing cases decided within the last year (FY 2007) revealed that
only 21 requests for rehearing contained arguments exceeding 10 pages.
Prohibition on New Grounds of Rejection in Examiner's Answer (4)
A savings to the applicant will result from the prohibition of new
grounds of rejection in an examiner's answer. The current rules permit
a new ground of rejection to be made in the examiner's answer. Rule
41.39(a)(2). In response to a new ground of rejection an applicant must
request that prosecution be reopened before the examiner or file a
reply brief with a request that the appeal be maintained. Rule
41.39(b). If the applicant elects to respond to the new ground of
rejection by filing a reply brief, the reply brief may not be
accompanied by any amendment, affidavit or other evidence. Rule
41.39(b)(2). In order to present an amendment, affidavit or other
evidence, the applicant must expend additional time and resources to
reopen prosecution before the examiner. Recent data from the Patent
Corps reveals that in Fiscal Year 2007 (FY 2007) approximately 5% of
examiner's answers written that year contained a new ground of
rejection. The final rules prohibit a new ground of rejection in an
examiner's answer and, thus, provide a savings to applicants in not
having to prepare a response to a new ground of rejection late in the
appeal process.
Elimination of Examiner's Response to Reply Brief (5)
The final rules eliminate the requirement for an examiner's
response following a reply brief. Under the current rules, examiners
are required to respond to a reply brief either by filing a
communication noting the reply brief or by filing a supplemental
examiner's answer. Rule 41.43(a)(1). The final rules eliminate both
types of examiner response to a reply brief.
The elimination of the examiner's requirement to note the reply
brief allows applications on appeal to proceed directly to the Board
upon filing of the reply brief, without waiting for an examiner's
response. This saves the applicant valuable time in the appeal process.
It also saves the applicant the expense of tracking the examiner's
response to the reply brief.
The elimination of a supplemental examiner's answer in response to
a reply brief also allows applications on appeal to proceed directly to
the Board upon filing of the reply brief. The applicant realizes an
additional savings by elimination of the supplemental examiner's
answer. Current practice provides that the applicant may file another
reply brief in response to a supplemental examiner's answer. In almost
every appeal where a supplemental examiner's answer is provided, the
applicant submits a reply brief. By eliminating the supplemental
examiner's answer, it eliminates the need for applicant to respond with
another reply brief. Therefore, elimination of the supplemental
examiner's answer saves the applicant the cost of preparing another
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 118 |
reply brief.
Petition To Exceed the Page Limit (6)
A $400 cost is incurred for applicants who petition to exceed the
page limit for filing an appeal brief, reply brief or request for
rehearing. The final rules permit an applicant to petition under Rule
41.3 to exceed a page limit requirement. Petitions under Rule 41.3 must
be accompanied by a $400 fee. Thus, the $400 petition fee is not a new
fee, but the application of the existing petition fee to a new rule.
Applicants can avoid this fee by filing a brief or request for
rehearing within the page limits set forth in the rules.
Petition for Extension of Time (7)
An additional $200 cost is incurred for applicants who petition for
an extension of time to file a reply brief, request for oral hearing or
request for rehearing. Under the current rules, an applicant may
request an extension of time to file the above papers under Rule
1.136(b). Rule 1.136(b) requests must be accompanied by a $200 fee. The
final rules still permit applicants to request such extensions of time;
however, the request must be made by petition under Rule 41.3, which
requires a $400 fee. Thus, the net additional cost for an extension of
time is $200. Moreover, applicants can avoid this fee by filing
documents within the time periods set forth in the rules.
List of Technical Terms or Unusual Words (8)
A small additional cost is associated with the new requirement for
a list of technical terms or unusual words for the transcriber at the
oral hearing. It is estimated that the list would take 5 to 10 minutes
or less to prepare. Assuming that the list of terms is prepared by a
law firm staff member at the attorney level, at an average billing rate
of $310 an hour, the added cost for preparation of the list of terms is
$25.83 to $51.67. It is further assumed that this list will replace the
current practice of a question and answer session with the transcriber
at the end of the hearing to collect these same terms. Note that in
Fiscal Year 2007, there were 965 requests for oral hearing filed at the
USPTO out of 4,639 appeals received at the Board. This added cost
applies only to cases in which a request for oral hearing is filed.
If an applicant were to incur all the additional costs outlined
above, the total would range from $778.33 to $880.01. In many cases,
however, the costs will be less than $880.01 when the savings outlined
for the appeal brief, reply brief, no new grounds of rejection in
examiner's answer, and no examiner response to the reply brief are
realized. Moreover, the additional legal costs are not significant when
compared to the cost of legal fees when filing an appeal with the
Board. The net additional legal services cost, minus the Office
petition fees of $400 (to exceed page limit) and $200 (request for
extension of time), is $178.33 to $280.01. According to the 2007 Report
of the Economic Survey by the American Intellectual Property Law
Association (AIPLA), page 21, the median charge in 2006 for an appeal
to the Board without government fees and without oral argument was
$4,000. An increase of $178.33 to $280.01, out of $4,000, represents an
increase of only 4.5% to 7%. From the same 2007 AIPLA survey, the
median charge in 2006 for an appeal to the Board without government
fees and with oral argument was $6,500. Thus, an additional cost of
$178.33 to $280.01, in a case with oral argument, represents an
increase of only 2.7% to 4.3%.
These additional costs apply equally to large and small entities,
but do not disproportionately impact small entities for the following
reasons. In examining the additional costs associated with the final
rules, the largest single additional cost is the $400 petition fee to
exceed the page limit for an appeal brief, reply brief, or request for
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 119 |
rehearing. As will be shown the potential number of small entities
impacted by this fee is a very small number.
In FY 2007, the Office processed 4,808 appeal briefs filed by small
entities and 18,337 appeal briefs filed by large entities. Assuming 3%
of the appeal briefs filed by small entities contained sections for the
grounds of rejection and argument exceeding 30 pages (see final
paragraph of Appeal Brief (1) section), this provides an estimate of
144 small entities that would find it necessary to petition to exceed
the appeal brief page limitation. Similarly, in FY 2007, the Office
processed 1,341 reply briefs filed by small entities and 3,606 reply
briefs filed by large entities. Assuming 1% of the reply briefs filed
by small entities contained sections for a statement of additional
facts and argument exceeding 20 pages (see final paragraph of Reply
Brief (2) section), this provides an estimate of 14 small entities that
would find it necessary to petition to exceed the reply brief page
limitation. Finally, in FY 2007, the Office processed 33 requests for
rehearing filed by small entities and 90 requests for rehearing filed
by large entities. Assuming 23% of the requests filed by small entities
contained argument sections exceeding 10 pages (see final paragraph of
Request for Rehearing (3) section), this provides an estimate of eight
small entities that would find it necessary to petition to exceed the
request for rehearing page limitation. Thus, at most, the maximum
number of small entities affected by the $400.00 petition fee is 166
small entities. When this number is compared to the 5,977 small
entities that filed a notice of appeal with the Office in FY 2007
(21,653 notices of appeal were filed by large entities in the same
period), it demonstrates that the petition fee has the potential to
affect only 2.8% of the small entities filing an appeal. An effect on
2.8% of the small entities filing an appeal is not a disproportionate
impact on small entities, nor is the actual number of 166 impacted
small entities a substantial number.
For these reasons, the Office has concluded that the changes in the
Final Rules will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132
This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
Executive Order 12866
This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the
purpose of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking includes requirements for structuring information
submitted to the USPTO by practitioners in order to process ex parte
appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).
The agency has received comments from the public concerning the burden
of these rules on the public. In order to ensure that there is
opportunity for the burden impact of these actions to be open for
public comment, the USPTO will be submitting to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) a request to consider this information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
The USPTO will be submitting to OMB the following items associated
with this rule making for inclusion in a new collection specific to the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: appeal brief, petition for
extension of time for filing a paper after the brief, petition to
increase the page limit, reply brief and request for rehearing before
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 120 |
the BPAI. Per the requirements of submission of an information
collection request to OMB, the USPTO will publish a 60-Day Federal
Register Notice which will invite comments on: (1) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the
functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information to respondents.
Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding this
information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden,
to Kimberly Jordan, Chief Trial Administrator, Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, (marked: Information Collection
Comment) or to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, (Attn: PTO Desk Officer).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 41
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents,
Lawyers.
. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office amends 37 CFR Chapter 1, part 41 as follows:
PART 41 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
. 1. The authority citation for part 41 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 3(a)(2)(A), 21, 23, 32, 132, 133,
134, 135, 306, and 315.
Subpart A - General Provisions
. 1. In § 41.2, revise the definitions of "Board" and "Contested
case" to read as follows:
§ 41.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Board means the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and includes:
(1) For a final Board action in an appeal or contested case, a
panel of the Board.
(2) For non-final actions, a Board member or employee acting with
the authority of the Board.
* * * * *
Contested case means a Board proceeding other than an appeal under
35 U.S.C. 134. An appeal in an inter partes reexamination proceeding is
not a contested case.
* * * * *
. 2. In § 41.3, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 121 |
§ 41.3 Petitions.
(a) Deciding official. A petition authorized by this part must be
addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. The Chief
Administrative Patent Judge may delegate authority to decide
petitions.
(b) Scope. This section covers petitions on matters pending before
the Board, petitions authorized by this part and petitions seeking
relief under 35 U.S.C. 135(c); otherwise see §§ 1.181 to 1.183
of this title. The following matters are not subject to petition:
(1) Issues committed by statute to a panel.
(2) In pending contested cases, procedural issues. See § 41.121(a)(3)
and § 41.125(c).
* * * * *
. 3. In § 41.4, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 41.4 Timeliness.
* * * * *
(b) Late filings. (1) A request to revive an application which
becomes abandoned or a reexamination proceeding which becomes
terminated under §§ 1.550(d) or 1.957(b) or (c) of this title
as a result of a late filing may be filed pursuant to § 1.137 of
this title.
(2) A late filing that does not result in an application becoming
abandoned or a reexamination proceeding becoming terminated
under §§ 1.550(d) or 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c) of
this title may be excused upon a showing of excusable neglect
or a Board determination that consideration on the merits would
be in the interests of justice.
(c) Scope. Except to the extent provided in this part, this section
governs proceedings before the Board, but does not apply to filings
related to Board proceedings before or after the Board has
jurisdiction (§ 41.35), such as:
(1) Extensions during prosecution (see § 1.136 of this title).
(2) Filing of a notice of appeal and an appeal brief (see
§§ 41.31(c) and 41.37(c)).
(3) Seeking judicial review (see §§ 1.301 to 1.304 of this title).
. 4. Revise § 41.12 to read as follows:
§ 41.12 Citation of authority.
(a) Authority. Citations to authority must include:
(1) United States Supreme Court decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: United States
Reports, West's Supreme Court Reports, United States Patents
Quarterly, Westlaw, or a slip opinion.
(2) United States Court of Appeals decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: West's Federal
Reporter (F., F.2d or F.3d), West's Federal Appendix (Fed.
Appx.), United States Patents Quarterly, Westlaw, or a slip
opinion.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 122 |
(3) United States District Court decision. A citation to a single
source in the following order of priority: West's Federal
Supplement (F.Supp., F.Supp. 2d), United States Patents
Quarterly, Westlaw, or a slip opinion.
(4) Slip opinions. If a slip opinion is relied upon, a copy of the
slip opinion must accompany the first paper in which an
authority is cited.
(5) Pinpoint citations. Use pinpoint citations whenever a specific
holding or portion of an authority is invoked.
(b) Non-binding authority. Non-binding authority may be cited.
If non-binding authority is not an authority of the Office
and is not reproduced in one of the reporters listed in
paragraph (a) of this section, a copy of the authority shall
be filed with the first paper in which it is cited.
Subpart B - Ex parte Appeals
. 5. Revise § 41.30 to add a definition of "Record" to read as follows:
§ 41.30 Definitions.
* * * * *
Record means the official content of the file of an application or
reexamination proceeding on appeal.
6. Revise § 41.31 to read as follows:
§ 41.31 Appeal to Board.
(a) Notice of appeal. An appeal is taken to the Board by filing a
notice of appeal.
(b) Fee. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the fee
required by § 41.20(b)(1).
(c) Time for filing notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be
filed within the time period provided under § 1.134 of this title.
(d) Extensions of time to file notice of appeal. The time for
filing a notice of appeal is extendable under the provisions of
§ 1.136(a) of this title for applications and § 1.550(c) of this
title for ex parte reexamination proceedings.
(e) Non-appealable issues. A non-appealable issue is an issue not
subject to an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134. An applicant or patent
owner dissatisfied with a decision of an examiner on a non-
appealable issue shall timely seek review by petition before
jurisdiction over an appeal is transferred to the Board
(see § 41.35). Failure to timely file a petition seeking review of
a decision of the examiner related to a non-appealable issue may
constitute a waiver to having that issue considered in the
application or reexamination on appeal.
. 7. Revise § 41.33 to read as follows:
§ 41.33 Amendments and evidence after appeal.
(a) Amendment after notice of appeal and prior to appeal brief. An
amendment filed after the date a notice of appeal is filed and prior
to the date an appeal brief is filed may be admitted as provided in
§ 1.116 of this title.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 123 |
(b) Amendment with or after appeal brief. An amendment filed on or
after the date an appeal brief is filed may be admitted:
(1) To cancel claims. To cancel claims provided cancellation of
claims does not affect the scope of any other pending claim in
the application or reexamination proceeding on appeal, or
(2) To convert dependent claim to independent claim. To rewrite
dependent claims into independent form.
(c) Other amendments. No other amendments filed after the date an
appeal brief is filed will be admitted, except as permitted by
§§ 41.50(b)(1), 41.50(d)(1), or 41.50(e) of this subpart.
(d) Evidence after notice of appeal and prior to appeal brief.
Evidence filed after the date a notice of appeal is filed and prior
to the date an appeal brief is filed may be admitted if:
(1) The examiner determines that the evidence overcomes at least
one rejection under appeal and does not necessitate any new
ground of rejection, and
(2) appellant shows good cause why the evidence was not earlier
presented.
(e) Other evidence. All other evidence filed after the date an
appeal brief is filed will not be admitted, except as permitted by
§§ 41.50(b)(1) or 41.50(d)(1) of this subpart.
. 8. Revise § 41.35 to read as follows:
§ 41.35 Jurisdiction over appeal.
(a) Beginning of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board begins
when a docket notice is mailed by the Board.
(b) End of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Board ends when:
(1) The Board mails a remand order (see § 41.50(b) or § 41.50(d)(1)
of this subpart),
(2) The Board mails a final decision (see § 41.2 of this part)
and judicial review is sought or the time for seeking judicial
review has expired,
(3) An express abandonment is filed which complies with § 1.138
of this title, or
(4) A request for continued examination is filed which complies
with § 1.114 of this title.
(c) Remand ordered by the Director. Prior to entry of a decision on
the appeal by the Board (see § 41.50), the Director may sua sponte
order an application or reexamination proceeding on appeal to be
remanded to the examiner.
. 9. Revise § 41.37 to read as follows:
§ 41.37 Appeal brief.
(a) Requirement for appeal brief. An appeal brief shall be timely
filed to perfect an appeal. Upon failure to file an appeal brief,
the proceedings on the appeal are terminated without further action
on the part of the Office.
(b) Fee. The appeal brief shall be accompanied by the fee required
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 124 |
by § 41.20(b)(2) of this subpart.
(c) Time for filing appeal brief. Appellant must file an appeal
brief within two months from the date of the filing of the notice of
appeal (see § 41.31(a)).
(d) Extension of time to file appeal brief. The time for filing an
appeal brief is extendable under the provisions of § 1.136(a) of
this title for applications and § 1.550(c) of this title for ex
parte reexamination proceedings.
(e) Content of appeal brief. The appeal brief must contain, under
appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the following
items:
(1) Statement of the real party in interest (see paragraph (f) of
this section).
(2) Statement of related cases (see paragraph (g) of this section).
(3) Jurisdictional statement (see paragraph (h) of this section).
(4) Table of contents (see paragraph (i) of this section).
(5) Table of authorities (see paragraph (j) of this section).
(6) [Reserved.]
(7) Status of amendments (see paragraph (l) of this section).
(8) Grounds of rejection to be reviewed (see paragraph (m) of
this section).
(9) Statement of facts (see paragraph (n) of this section).
(10) Argument (see paragraph (o) of this section).
(11) An appendix containing a claims section (see paragraph (p) of
this section), a claim support and drawing analysis section
(see paragraph (r) of this section), a means or step plus
function analysis section (see paragraph (s) of this section),
an evidence section (see paragraph (t) of this section), and a
related cases section (see paragraph (u) of this section).
(f) Statement of real party in interest. The "statement of the
real party in interest" shall identify the name of the real party
in interest. The real party in interest must be identified in such
a manner as to readily permit a member of the Board to determine
whether recusal would be appropriate. Appellant is under a continuing
obligation to update this item during the pendency of the appeal.
If an appeal brief does not contain a statement of real party in
interest, the Office will assume that the named inventors are the
real party in interest.
(g) Statement of related cases. The "statement of related cases"
shall identify, by application, patent, appeal, interference, or
court docket number, all prior or pending appeals, interferences or
judicial proceedings, known to any inventors, any attorneys or
agents who prepared or prosecuted the application on appeal and any
other person who was substantively involved in the preparation or
prosecution of the application on appeal, and that are related to,
directly affect, or would be directly affected by, or have a bearing
on the Board's decision in the appeal. A related case includes any
continuing application of the application on appeal. A copy of any
final or significant interlocutory decision rendered by the Board or
a court in any proceeding identified under this paragraph shall be
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 125 |
included in the related cases section (see paragraph (u) of this
section) in the appendix. Appellant is under a continuing obligation
to update this item during the pendency of the appeal. If an appeal
brief does not contain a statement of related cases, the Office will
assume that there are no related cases.
(h) Jurisdictional statement. The "jurisdictional statement" shall
establish the jurisdiction of the Board to consider the appeal.
The jurisdictional statement shall include a statement of the
statute under which the appeal is taken, the date of the Office
action setting out the rejection on appeal from which the appeal is
taken, the date the notice of appeal was filed, and the date the
appeal brief is being filed. If a notice of appeal or an appeal brief
is filed after the time specified in this subpart, appellant must
also indicate the date an extension of time was requested and, if
known, the date the request was granted.
(i) Table of contents. A "table of contents" shall list, along
with a reference to the page where each item begins, the items
required to be listed in the appeal brief (see paragraph (e) of
this section) or reply brief (see § 41.41(d) of this subpart), as
appropriate.
(j) Table of authorities. A "table of authorities" shall list
cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes and other authorities
along with a reference to the pages where each authority is cited
in the appeal brief or reply brief, as appropriate.
(k) [Reserved.]
(l) Status of amendments. The "status of amendments" shall
indicate the status of all amendments filed after final rejection
(e.g., whether entered or not entered).
(m) Grounds of rejection to be reviewed. The "grounds of rejection
to be reviewed" shall set out the grounds of rejection to be
reviewed, including the statute applied, the claims subject to each
rejection and references relied upon by the examiner.
(n) Statement of facts. The "statement of facts" shall set out in
an objective and non-argumentative manner the material facts
relevant to the rejections on appeal. A fact shall be supported by
a reference to a specific page number of a document in the Record
and, where applicable, a specific line or paragraph, and drawing
numerals. A general reference to a document as a whole or to large
portions of a document does not comply with the requirements of this
paragraph.
(o) Argument. The "argument" shall explain why the examiner erred
as to each ground of rejection to be reviewed. Any explanation must
address all points made by the examiner with which the appellant
disagrees. Any finding made or conclusion reached by the examiner
that is not challenged will be presumed to be correct. For each
argument an explanation must identify where the argument was made
in the first instance to the examiner or state that the argument has
not previously been made to the examiner. Each ground of rejection
shall be separately argued under a separate heading.
(1) Claims standing or falling together. For each ground of
rejection applicable to two or more claims, the claims may be
argued separately (claims are considered by appellants as
separately patentable) or as a group (claims stand or fall
together). When two or more claims subject to the same ground of
rejection are argued as a group, the Board may select a single
claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide
the appeal on the basis of the selected claim alone with respect
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 126 |
to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection. Any doubt
as to whether claims have been argued separately or as a group
as to a ground of rejection will be resolved against appellant
and the claims will be deemed to have been argued as a group.
Any claim argued separately as to a ground of rejection shall
be placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number.
A statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.
(2) Arguments considered. Only those arguments which are presented
in the argument section of the appeal brief and that address
claims set out in the claim support and drawing analysis section
in the appendix will be considered. Appellant waives all other
arguments in the appeal.
(3) Format of argument. Unless a response is purely legal in
nature, when responding to a point made in the examiner's
rejection, the appeal brief shall specifically identify the
point made by the examiner and indicate where appellant
previously responded to the point or state that appellant has
not previously responded to the point. In identifying any point
made by the examiner, the appellant shall refer to a page and,
where appropriate, a line or paragraph, of a document in
the Record.
(p) Claims section. The "claims section" in the appendix shall
consist of an accurate clean copy in numerical order of all claims
pending in the application or reexamination proceeding on appeal.
The status of every claim shall be set out after the claim number
and in parentheses (e.g., 1 (rejected), 2 (withdrawn), 3 (objected
to), 4 (cancelled), and 5 (allowed)). A cancelled claim need not be
reproduced.
(q) [Reserved.]
(r) Claim support and drawing analysis section. For each
independent claim involved in the appeal and each dependent claim
argued separately (see paragraph (o)(1) of this section), the claim
support and drawing analysis section in the appendix shall consist
of an annotated copy of the claim (and, if necessary, any claim from
which the claim argued separately depends) indicating in boldface
between braces ({ {time} ) the page and line or paragraph after each
limitation where the limitation is described in the specification as
filed. If there is a drawing or amino acid or nucleotide material
sequence, and at least one limitation is illustrated in a drawing or
amino acid or nucleotide material sequence, the "claims support and
drawing analysis section" in the appendix shall also contain in
boldface between the same braces ({ {time} ) where each limitation
is shown in the drawings or sequence.
(s) Means or step plus function analysis section. For each
independent claim involved in the appeal and each dependent claim
argued separately (see paragraph (o)(1) of this section) having a
limitation that appellant regards as a means or step plus function
limitation in the form permitted by the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
112, for each such limitation, the "means or step plus function
analysis section" in the appendix shall consist of an annotated copy
of the claim (and, if necessary, any claim from which the claim
argued separately depends) indicating in boldface between braces
({ {time} ) the page and line of the specification and the drawing
figure and element numeral that describes the structure, material or
acts corresponding to each claimed function.
(t) Evidence section. The "evidence section" shall contain only
papers which have been entered by the examiner. The evidence section
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 127 |
shall include:
(1) Contents. A table of contents.
(2) [Reserved.]
(3) [Reserved.]
(4) [Reserved.]
(5) Affidavits and declarations. Affidavits and declarations, if
any, and attachments to declarations, before the examiner and
which are relied upon by appellant in the appeal. An affidavit
or declaration otherwise mentioned in the appeal brief which
does not appear in the evidence section will not be considered.
(6) Other evidence filed prior to the notice of appeal. Other
evidence, if any, before the examiner and filed prior to the
date of the notice of appeal and relied upon by appellant in the
appeal. Other evidence filed before the notice of appeal that is
otherwise mentioned in the appeal brief and which does not
appear in the evidence section will not be considered.
(7) Other evidence filed after the notice of appeal. Other evidence
relied upon by the appellant in the appeal and admitted into the
file pursuant to § 41.33(d) of this subpart. Other evidence filed
after the notice of appeal that is otherwise mentioned in the
appeal brief and which does not appear in the evidence section
will not be considered.
(u) Related cases section. The "related cases section" shall
consist of copies of orders and opinions required to be cited
pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.
(v) Appeal brief format requirements. An appeal brief shall comply
with § 1.52 of this title and the following additional requirements:
(1) Page and line numbering. The pages of the appeal brief,
including all sections in the appendix, shall be consecutively
numbered using Arabic numerals beginning with the first page of
the appeal brief, which shall be numbered page 1. If the
appellant chooses to number the lines, line numbering may be
within the left margin.
(2) Double spacing. Double spacing shall be used except in
headings, tables of contents, tables of authorities, signature
blocks, and certificates of service. Block quotations must be
indented and can be one and one half or double spaced.
(3) [Reserved.]
(4) Font. The font size shall be 14 point, including the font for
block quotations and footnotes.
(5) Length of appeal brief. An appeal brief may not exceed 30
pages, excluding any statement of the real party in interest,
statement of related cases, jurisdictional statement, table of
contents, table of authorities, status of amendments, signature
block, and appendix. An appeal brief may not incorporate another
paper by reference. A request to exceed the page limit shall be
made by petition under § 41.3 filed at least ten calendar days
prior to the date the appeal brief is due.
(6) Signature block. The signature block must identify the
appellant or appellant's representative, as appropriate, and a
registration number, a correspondence address, a telephone
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 128 |
number, a fax number and an e-mail address.
. 10. Revise § 41.39 to read as follows:
§ 41.39 Examiner's answer.
(a) Answer. If the examiner determines that the appeal should go
forward, then within such time and manner as may be established by
the Director the examiner shall enter an examiner's answer
responding to the appeal brief.
(b) No new ground of rejection. An examiner's answer shall not
include a new ground of rejection.
. 11. Revise § 41.41 to read as follows:
§ 41.41 Reply brief.
(a) Reply brief authorized. An appellant may file a single reply
brief responding to the points made in the examiner's answer.
(b) Time for filing reply brief. If the appellant elects to file a
reply brief, the reply brief must be filed within two months of the
date of the mailing of the examiner's answer.
(c) Extension of time to file reply brief. A request for an
extension of time to file a reply brief shall be presented as a
petition under § 41.3 of this part.
(d) Content of reply brief. Except as otherwise set out in this
section, the form and content of a reply brief are governed by the
requirements for an appeal brief as set out in § 41.37 of this
subpart. A reply brief may not exceed 20 pages, excluding any table
of contents, table of authorities, and signature block, required by
this section. A request to exceed the page limit shall be made by
petition under § 41.3 of this part and filed at least ten calendar
days before the reply brief is due. A reply brief must contain, under
appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the following items:
(1) Table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) Table of authorities - see § 41.37(j) of this subpart.
(3) [Reserved.]
(4) Statement of additional facts - see paragraph (f) of this
section.
(5) Argument - see paragraph (g) of this section.
(e) [Reserved.]
(f) Statement of additional facts. The "statement of additional facts"
shall consist of a statement of the additional facts that appellant
believes are necessary to address the points raised in the examiner's
answer and, as to each fact, must identify the point raised in the
examiner's answer to which the fact relates.
(g) Argument. Any arguments raised in the reply brief which are not
responsive to points made in the examiner's answer will not be
considered and will be treated as waived.
(h) [Reserved.]
(i) No amendment or new evidence. No amendment or new evidence may
accompany a reply brief.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 129 |
§ 41.43 [Removed]
. 12. Remove § 41.43.
. 13. Revise § 41.47 to read as follows:
§ 41.47 Oral hearing.
(a) Request for oral hearing. If appellant desires an oral hearing,
appellant must file, as a separate paper, a written request
captioned:
"REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING".
(b) Fee. A request for oral hearing shall be accompanied by the fee
required by § 41.20(b)(3) of this part.
(c) Time for filing request for oral hearing. Appellant must file a
request for oral hearing within two months from the date of the
examiner's answer.
(d) Extension of time to file request for oral hearing. A request
for an extension of time shall be presented as a petition under
§ 41.3 of this part.
(e) Date for oral hearing. If an oral hearing is properly
requested, the Board shall set a date for the oral hearing.
(f) Confirmation of oral hearing. Within such time as may be
ordered by the Board, appellant shall confirm attendance at the oral
hearing. Failure to timely confirm attendance will be taken as a
waiver of any request for an oral hearing.
(g) List of terms. At the time appellant confirms attendance at the
oral hearing, appellant shall supply a list of technical terms and
other unusual words which can be provided to any individual
transcribing an oral hearing.
(h) Length of argument. Unless otherwise ordered by the Board,
argument on behalf of appellant shall be limited to 20 minutes.
(i) Oral hearing limited to Record. At oral hearing only the Record
will be considered. No additional evidence may be offered to the
Board in support of the appeal. Any argument not presented in a
brief cannot be raised at an oral hearing.
(j) Recent legal development. Notwithstanding paragraph (i) of this
section, an appellant or the examiner may rely on and call the
Board's attention to a recent court or Board opinion which could
have an effect on the manner in which the appeal is decided.
(k) Visual aids. Visual aids may be used at an oral hearing, but
must be limited to documents or artifacts in the Record or a model
or an exhibit presented for demonstration purposes during an
interview with the examiner. At the oral hearing, appellant shall
provide one copy of each visual aid (photograph in the case of an
artifact, a model or an exhibit) for each judge and one copy to be
added to the Record.
(l) Failure to attend oral hearing. Failure of an appellant to
attend an oral hearing will be treated as a waiver of oral hearing.
. 14. Revise § 41.50 to read as follows:
§ 41.50 Decisions and other actions by the Board.
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 130 |
(a) Affirmance and reversal. The Board may affirm or reverse an
examiner's rejection in whole or in part. Affirmance of a rejection
of a claim constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the
examiner on that claim, except as to any rejection specifically
reversed.
(b) Remand. The Board may remand an application to the examiner. If
in response to a remand for further consideration of a rejection,
the examiner enters an examiner's answer, within two months the
appellant shall exercise one of the following two options to avoid
abandonment of the application or termination of a reexamination
proceeding:
(1) Request to reopen prosecution. Request that prosecution be
reopened before the examiner by filing a reply under § 1.111
of this title with or without amendment or submission of
evidence. Any amendment or evidence must be responsive to the
remand or issues discussed in the examiner's answer. A request
that complies with this paragraph will be entered and the
application or patent under reexamination will be reconsidered
by the examiner under the provisions of § 1.112 of this title.
A request under this paragraph will be treated as a request to
dismiss the appeal.
(2) Request to re-docket the appeal. The appellant may request that
the Board re-docket the appeal (see § 41.35(a) of this subpart)
and file a reply brief as set forth in § 41.41 of this subpart.
A reply brief may not be accompanied by any amendment or
evidence. A reply brief which is accompanied by an amendment or
evidence will be treated as a request to reopen prosecution
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Remand not final action. Whenever a decision of the Board
includes a remand, the decision shall not be considered a final
decision of the Board. When appropriate, upon conclusion of
proceedings on remand before the examiner, the Board may enter an
order making its decision final.
(d) New ground of rejection. Should the Board have a basis not
involved in the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may
enter a new ground of rejection. A new ground of rejection shall
be considered an interlocutory order and shall not be considered a
final decision. If the Board enters a new ground of rejection,
within two months appellant must exercise one of the following two
options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
dismissal of the appeal as to any claim subject to the new ground
of rejection:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an amendment of the claims subject
to a new ground of rejection or new evidence relating to the
new ground of rejection or both, and request that the matter
be reconsidered by the examiner. The application or
reexamination proceeding on appeal will be remanded to the
examiner. A new ground of rejection by the Board is binding on
the examiner unless, in the opinion of the examiner, the
amendment or new evidence overcomes the new ground of rejection.
In the event the examiner maintains the new ground of rejection,
appellant may again appeal to the Board.
(2) Request for rehearing. Submit a request for rehearing pursuant
to § 41.52 of this subpart relying on the Record.
(e) Recommendation. In its opinion in support of its decision, the
Board may include a recommendation, explicitly designated as such,
of how a claim on appeal may be amended to overcome a specific
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 131 |
rejection. When the Board makes a recommendation, appellant may file
an amendment or take other action consistent with the recommendation.
An amendment or other action, otherwise complying with statutory
patentability requirements, will overcome the specific rejection. An
examiner, however, upon return of the application or reexamination
proceeding to the jurisdiction of the examiner, may enter a new ground
of rejection of a claim amended in conformity with a recommendation,
when appropriate.
(f) Request for briefing and information. The Board may enter an
order requiring appellant to brief matters or supply information or
both that the Board believes would assist in deciding the appeal.
Appellant will be given a non-extendable time period within which
to respond to the order. Failure of appellant to timely respond to
the order may result in dismissal of the appeal in whole or in part.
(g) Extension of time to take action. A request for an extension of
time to respond to a request for briefing and information under
paragraph (f) of this section is not authorized. A request for an
extension of time to respond to Board action under paragraphs (b)
and (d) of this section shall be presented as a petition under
§ 41.3 of this part.
. 15. Revise § 41.52 to read as follows:
§ 41.52 Rehearing.
(a) Request for rehearing authorized. An appellant may file a
single request for rehearing.
(b) Time for filing request for rehearing. Any request for rehearing
must be filed within two months from the date of the decision
mailed by the Board.
(c) Extension of time to file request for rehearing. A request for
an extension of time shall be presented as a petition under § 41.3
of this part.
(d) Content of request for rehearing. The form of a request for
rehearing is governed by the requirements of § 41.37(v) of this
subpart, except that a request for rehearing may not exceed 10 pages,
excluding any table of contents, table of authorities, and signature
block. A request to exceed the page limit shall be made by petition
under § 41.3 at least ten calendar days before the request for
rehearing is due. A request for rehearing must contain, under
appropriate headings and in the order indicated, the following
items:
(1) Table of contents - see § 41.37(i) of this subpart.
(2) Table of authorities - see § 41.37(j) of this subpart.
(3) [Reserved.]
(4) Argument - see paragraph (f) of this section.
(e) [Reserved.]
(f) Argument. A request for rehearing shall state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board. In filing a request for rehearing, the argument shall adhere
to the following format: "On page x, lines y-z of the Board's
opinion, the Board states that (set out what was stated). The point
misapprehended or overlooked was made to the Board in (identify
paper, page and line where argument was made to the Board)
or the point was first made in the opinion of the Board. The response
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 132 |
is (state response)." As part of each response, appellant shall refer
to the page number and line or drawing number of a document in the
Record. A general restatement of the case will not be considered an
argument that the Board has misapprehended or overlooked a point.
A new argument cannot be made in a request for rehearing, except:
(1) New ground of rejection. Appellant may respond to a new ground
of rejection entered pursuant to § 41.50(d)(2) of this subpart.
(2) Recent legal development. Appellant may rely on and call the
Board's attention to a recent court or Board opinion which is
relevant to an issue decided in the appeal.
(g) No amendment or new evidence. No amendment or new evidence may
accompany a request for rehearing.
(h) Decision on rehearing. A decision will be rendered on a request
for rehearing. The decision on rehearing is deemed to incorporate
the underlying decision sought to be reheard except for those
portions of the underlying decision specifically modified on
rehearing. A decision on rehearing is final for purposes of judicial
review, except when otherwise noted in the decision on rehearing.
. 16. Revise § 41.54 to read as follows:
§ 41.54 Action following decision.
After a decision by the Board and subject to appellant's right to
seek judicial review, the application or reexamination proceeding will
be returned to the jurisdiction of the examiner for such further action
as may be appropriate consistent with the decision by the Board.
. 17. Add § 41.56 to read as follows:
§ 41.56 Sanctions.
(a) Imposition of sanctions. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge
or an expanded panel of the Board may impose a sanction against an
appellant for misconduct, including:
(1) Failure to comply with an order entered in the appeal or an
applicable rule.
(2) Advancing or maintaining a misleading or frivolous request for
relief or argument.
(3) Engaging in dilatory tactics.
(b) Nature of sanction. Sanctions may include entry of:
(1) An order declining to enter a docket notice.
(2) An order holding certain facts to have been established in the
appeal.
(3) An order expunging a paper or precluding an appellant from
filing a paper.
(4) An order precluding an appellant from presenting or contesting
a particular issue.
(5) An order excluding evidence.
(6) [Reserved.]
(7) An order holding an application on appeal to be abandoned or a
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 133 |
reexamination proceeding terminated.
(8) An order dismissing an appeal.
(9) An order denying an oral hearing.
(10) An order terminating an oral hearing.
May 29, 2008 JON W. DUDAS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Errata
"All reference to Patent No. D564,681 to Itaya, et al of Osaka, Japan
for FLUORESCENT LAMP appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,343,780 to Alfred Riddle of Milpitas, CA
for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GAS ANALYSIS USING PHOTO-ACOUSTIC SPECTROSCOPY
appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,344,922 to Burrell, et al of Poughkeepsie,
NY for METHODS FOR FORMING CO-PLANAR WAFER-SCALE CHIP PACKAGES appearing in
the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,344,950 to Takashi Saiki of Kawasaki,
Japan for METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH A NOTCHED
GATE ELECTRODE appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,344,980 to Axel Preusse, et al of
Radebeul, Germany for TECHNIQUE FOR FORMING INTERCONNECT STRUCTURES WITH
REDUCED ELECTRO AND STRESS MIGRATION AND/OR RESISTIVITY appearing in the
Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,345,076 to Gregory D. Cuny, et al of
Somerville, GA for INHIBITORS OF CELLULAR NECROSIS appearing in the
Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,345,162 to C. Frank Bennett, et al of
Carlsbad, CA for ANTISENSE MODULATION OF SUPEROXIDE DISNUTASE 1,
SOLUBLE EXPRESSION appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,345,517 to Atsuko Monma, et al of Tokyo,
Japan for DUTY DETECTION CIRCUIT appearing in the Official Gazette of
March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,346,328 to Naoki Okamoto, et al of
Takatsuki, Japan for RECEIVING CIRCUIT appearing in the Official Gazette of
March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,346,596 to Hiroshi Date, et al of
Fukuoka-shi, Japan for DESIGNING OF A LOGIC CIRCUIT FOR TESTABILITY
appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,346,745 to David J. Long, et al of Walnut
Creek, CA for TRANSACTION-AWARE CACHING FOR FOLDER PATH DATA appearing in
the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,346,907 to Adolfo M. Nemirovsky, et al
of San Jose, CA for INTERRUPT AND EXCEPTION HANDLING FOR MULTI-STREAMING
DIGITAL PROCESSORS appearing in the Official Gazette of March 18, 2008
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for June 10, 2008
5,874,565 7,198,600 7,292,914 7,327,264
6,136,577 7,199,503 7,293,252 7,327,581
6,143,157 7,199,684 7,293,487 7,327,583
6,298,902 7,200,279 7,293,560 7,327,796
6,304,373 7,201,725 7,294,267 7,327,887
6,501,387 7,202,223 7,295,031 7,328,290
6,528,485 7,209,747 7,295,173 7,328,310
6,530,000 7,210,075 7,295,648 7,328,378
6,628,273 7,211,255 7,296,181 7,328,380
6,665,444 7,211,325 7,296,199 7,328,434
6,747,026 7,212,552 7,297,069 7,328,456
6,806,567 7,213,067 7,297,296 7,328,475
6,822,793 7,214,736 7,297,347 7,328,638
6,831,089 7,215,156 7,297,499 7,328,887
6,838,776 7,215,527 7,297,537 7,328,931
6,841,796 7,216,336 7,299,345 7,329,116
6,842,895 7,216,493 7,299,486 7,329,531
6,844,347 7,216,787 7,299,692 7,329,576
6,845,039 7,216,870 7,300,269 7,329,601
6,851,800 7,217,299 7,300,456 7,329,675
6,854,075 7,221,475 7,301,122 7,329,917
6,859,618 7,221,679 7,301,237 7,329,955
6,867,239 7,221,905 7,301,489 7,329,956
6,871,278 7,222,063 7,301,658 7,329,986
6,872,490 7,222,511 7,302,081 7,330,032
6,876,505 7,222,831 7,302,701 7,330,119
6,878,507 7,224,703 7,303,694 7,330,192
6,888,903 7,224,802 7,303,873 7,330,211
6,890,055 7,229,444 7,304,068 7,330,390
6,894,811 7,230,004 7,304,130 7,330,940
6,895,596 7,230,921 7,304,139 7,330,943
6,903,903 7,231,945 7,304,156 7,330,953
6,908,481 7,232,450 7,304,910 7,331,003
6,940,875 7,233,166 7,305,016 7,331,006
6,950,801 7,235,381 7,305,200 7,331,023
6,951,841 7,235,716 7,305,370 7,331,104
6,952,742 7,235,888 7,306,158 7,331,129
6,959,014 7,237,021 7,306,506 7,331,585
6,960,854 7,239,345 7,306,683 7,332,102
6,961,688 7,240,038 7,306,946 7,332,386
6,979,596 7,240,363 7,307,129 7,332,443
6,980,787 7,242,134 7,307,426 7,332,444
6,984,222 7,242,754 7,307,528 7,332,735
6,988,123 7,243,154 7,307,534 7,332,767
6,998,126 7,243,773 7,307,824 7,332,789
7,000,590 7,244,093 7,308,566 7,332,819
7,007,425 7,244,147 7,308,602 7,332,820
7,011,118 7,245,921 7,308,639 7,332,946
7,012,152 7,246,929 7,308,677 7,332,950
7,013,034 7,247,156 7,308,932 7,332,951
7,016,030 7,247,626 7,309,314 7,332,974
7,020,873 7,249,300 7,309,508 7,333,061
7,022,026 7,249,341 7,309,695 7,333,350
7,029,922 7,249,840 7,309,728 7,333,481
7,031,343 7,250,296 7,310,705 7,333,498
7,049,797 7,250,452 7,310,765 7,333,511
7,052,534 7,251,220 7,310,778 7,333,727
7,053,037 7,251,359 7,310,861 7,333,853
7,053,115 7,252,737 7,311,039 7,333,986
7,053,467 7,253,911 7,311,132 7,334,005
7,054,271 7,256,704 7,312,136 7,334,304
7,069,006 7,257,702 7,312,137 7,334,725
July 1, 2008 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1332 OG 136 |
7,075,780 7,258,480 7,312,156 7,335,358
7,079,146 7,259,137 7,312,346 7,335,494
7,084,271 7,260,786 7,312,902 7,335,517
7,089,367 7,260,957 7,312,957 7,335,525
7,092,523 7,262,303 7,313,101 7,335,571
7,100,913 7,262,406 7,313,295 7,335,591
7,101,866 7,264,082 7,313,431 7,335,626
7,104,625 7,265,870 7,313,924 7,335,958
7,105,506 7,266,035 7,314,057 7,335,962
7,105,551 7,266,202 7,314,671 7,335,963
7,106,454 7,266,889 7,315,042 7,335,988
7,106,719 7,268,785 7,315,051 7,336,111
7,109,199 7,270,897 7,315,600 7,336,239
7,113,371 7,271,112 7,315,725 7,336,313
7,116,370 7,271,349 7,315,728 7,336,522
7,118,445 7,271,406 7,315,930 7,336,706
7,118,447 7,271,984 7,316,162 7,336,768
7,119,092 7,272,053 7,316,846 7,336,925
7,126,356 7,272,748 7,317,577 7,337,074
7,127,563 7,272,839 7,317,690 7,337,136
7,130,273 7,272,865 7,317,912 7,337,385
7,137,074 7,273,477 7,317,969 7,337,578
7,137,213 7,273,843 7,318,149 7,337,944
7,139,332 7,274,010 7,318,160 7,338,257
7,141,476 7,274,483 7,318,820 7,338,315
7,142,133 7,274,819 7,319,644 7,338,372
7,145,340 7,276,249 7,319,705 7,338,506
7,145,578 7,276,318 7,319,841 7,338,522
7,146,899 7,276,432 7,320,055 7,338,798
7,147,370 7,277,105 7,320,066 7,338,799
7,147,955 7,278,022 7,320,099 7,338,834
7,148,405 7,279,187 7,320,387 7,338,867
7,149,299 7,279,408 7,320,666 7,338,889
7,153,021 7,279,699 7,320,787 7,338,964
7,153,293 7,279,846 7,321,203 7,339,184
7,153,438 7,279,876 7,321,333 7,339,258
7,153,667 7,280,140 7,321,488 7,339,890
7,155,669 7,280,149 7,321,593 7,340,087
7,156,894 7,280,214 7,321,783 7,340,499
7,160,237 7,280,610 7,321,964 7,340,684
7,160,458 7,280,641 7,322,014 7,340,720
7,162,023 7,280,785 7,322,467 7,340,743
7,162,764 7,281,076 7,322,755 7,340,765
7,163,969 7,282,047 7,322,885 7,342,006
7,164,597 7,282,155 7,323,015 7,342,078
7,164,746 7,282,497 7,323,141 7,342,253
7,167,636 7,282,524 7,323,390 7,342,272
7,167,796 7,283,266 7,323,592 7,342,279
7,169,534 7,283,273 7,323,600 7,343,444
7,170,135 7,283,437 7,323,623 7,346,370
7,173,942 7,283,445 7,323,661 7,348,205
7,176,087 7,283,643 7,324,296 7,348,238
7,176,105 7,283,951 7,324,299 7,350,044
7,176,840 7,285,941 7,324,433 D543,472
7,177,007 7,286,145 7,324,605 D552,906
7,177,520 7,286,153 7,324,668 D553,941
7,178,057 7,286,530 7,324,720 D554,120
7,178,491 7,286,796 7,324,903 D557,979
7,181,082 7,287,541 7,324,949 D558,336
7,183,007 7,287,610 7,325,005 D560,468
7,183,208 7,287,722 7,325,006 D560,565
7,184,164 7,288,059 7,325,045 D562,494
7,184,758 7,288,330 7,325,237 D563,266
7,185,410 7,288,438 7,325,317 PP18,260
7,189,416 7,288,458 7,325,686 PP18,566
7,191,246 7,289,909 7,325,896 RE39,932
7,192,266 7,290,047 7,325,979 RE40,051
7,192,924 7,291,601 7,326,356 RE40,114
7,193,659 7,292,398 7,326,750
7,198,324 7,292,404 7,326,759
Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
May 26-30, 2008
Date Issued |
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. No. |
Party or Parties |
Issue |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer's or Petitioner's Mark and Goods or Services |
Applicant's or Respondent's Mark and Goods or Services |
Mark and Goods Cited by Examining Attorney |
Citable as Precedent of TTAB |
5-27 |
EX |
78857737 |
Lash’s Lessons, LLC |
2(e)(4) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"MERROW" [toys, namely, playsets for toy figures and plastic character toys; toy action figures and accessories therefor; stuffed and plush toy animals] |
|
No |
5-27 |
EX |
79025177 |
ERNI Lektro-apparate GmbH |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed in both classes |
|
"MICROBRIDGE" [in Class 9: electrical and electronic devices, plug connectors and their parts, namely, contact pins for male plugs and contact springs for female plugs, not including adjustable resistors; in Class 17: electrical insulators made of plastic for contact pins for plug connectors, male plug, and contact springs for female plugs, but not for adjustable resistors] |
"MICROBRIDGE" [electronic components, namely, adjustable resistors] |
No |
5-27 |
EX |
78555941 |
KWI LLC |
2(d) |
Refusal Reversed |
|
"KINGWIRE" (in stylized form) [bulk electrical cables and electrical wires] |
3 cited registrations, all owned by the same entity: "KING" (in stylized form) [metal electrical wire connectors, metal wire reel stands, etc.]; "KING CONNECTORS" [electrical wire connectors]; "KING INNOVATION" [electrical wire connectors] |
No |
5-27 |
EX |
78505128 |
Lauren Ashley Howell |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"THREE BEARS PUBLISHING" [decals, appliqués in the form of a decal, art pictures in watercolor, acrylic paint, marker, pencil crayon, and pencil, art prints, printed art reproductions, graphic art reproductions, printed computer-generated art, printed characters, paper window shades, paper automobile windshield sun shades, paper placemats, gift wrapping paper, stickers, photo albums, temporary tattoos, dry-transfer characters] |
2 cited registrations for the mark "THREE BEARS BOOKS" [publication of developmentally appropriate products, namely, educational teaching textbooks, workbooks, and worksheets for children and their caregivers] and [educational and teaching materials, namely, workbooks, worksheets, and textbooks on a variety of subjects for grades pre-kindergarten through 12] |
No |
5-27 |
OPP OPP OPP OPP (SJ) |
91176217 91177038 91176218 91177039 |
Orient-Express Hotels, Inc. v. Cipriani Group Inc. Hotel Cipriani SrL v. Cipriani Group Inc. |
whether contract estoppel prevents registration of applicant’s mark; whether opposers’ oppositions should be denied because of unclean hands |
Oppositions Sustained |
|
2 applications to register the mark
"CIPRIANI" [real estate development services] and [restaurant and food delivery services] |
|
No |
5-27 |
OPP (SJ) |
91176664 |
COMPX International Inc. v. Robert Walter Harvey |
2(e)(1) [whether opposer has standing to file the opposition] |
Opposition Dismissed (Applicant’s motion for summary judgment granted) |
|
"COMPX" [computational modeling services for use in a variety of physical processes; development and custom design of computer software] |
|
No |
5-28 |
OPP |
91163338 |
David Milligan and Marc Miranda v. Inhand Mobile Entertainment, LLC |
2(e)(1) |
Opposition Dismissed |
|
"MOANTONES" [entertainment services featuring the provision of specialty ringtones and audio entertainment files consisting of sound and voice recordings, namely, music and sex-oriented material for consumer use via wireless devices] |
|
No |
5-28 |
OPP (SJ) |
91174518 |
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG |
whether the parties’ prior agreement prevents registration of applicant’s mark; whether opposer’s opposition should be denied because of contractual or equitable estoppel or because of res judicata |
Opposition Sustained (Opposer’s motion for summary judgment granted) |
|
"STORZ THE WORLD OF ENDOSCOPY" (and design) [surgical, medical and veterinary instruments] |
|
Yes |
5-29 |
OPP |
91169260 |
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Timothy J. Constantine |
2(d) |
Opposition Dismissed |
"WORLD GOLF CHAMPIONSHIPS," "WORLD GOLF
VILLAGE," "WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION," and "WORLD GOLF HALL OF FAME" [all for various goods, including clothing, and services] |
"WORLD GOLF COLLECTION" (in design format) [clothing, namely, caps, gloves, hats, jackets, pants, rainwear, shirts, shorts, socks, sweaters, sweatshirts, t-shirts, vests, visors] |
|
No |
5-29 |
OPP |
91169103 |
Classic Media, Inc. v. Atlantic Systems Inc. |
2(d); dilution |
Opposition Dismissed |
"LONE RANGER" [a variety of goods, including toys, books, comic books, clothing] |
"PHONERANGER" [wireless headset for use with telephones, computers, TVs, other audio equipment and VOIP services] |
|
No |
5-30 |
EX |
77011826 |
Tynsy Foster |
whether applicant’s identified goods are "goods in trade" |
Refusal Reversed |
|
"MIRACLE BEAR" [soft sculptures in the nature of stuffed fabric bears] |
|
No |
5-30 |
EX |
78849329 |
Armstrong Vineyards & Winery |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"LUZ DE ESTRELLA" (and design) [wines] |
"STARLITE VINEYARDS" [wine] |
No |
5-30 |
OPP |
91173658 |
RWI Resources, LLC v. Matt Erlich and Shlomo Fried |
2(d) [whether opposer proved its standing to file the opposition] |
Opposition Dismissed |
"ZIPTIDE" [flavored and non-flavored sparkling water, spring water, caffeinated and non-caffeinated drinks with or without fruit flavoring, smoothies and caffeinated and non-caffeinated tea] |
"ZIPCAL" [drinking water, flavored water, carbonated and non-carbonated] |
|
No |
5-30 |
EX |
76633841 |
Biolex, Inc. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed in both classes |
|
"LEX SYSTEM" [in Class 40: manufacturing of plants, recombinant protein, and other organisms and biomolecules to order and/or specification of others in the field of biotechnology; in Class 42: research, development, and consultation services in the field of biotechnology, namely, genetic engineering of plants and other organisms, recombinant protein and other biomolecules, discovery and production of plants and other organisms and purification of recombinant proteins and other biomolecules produced in plants and other organisms; product research and development for discovering and making recombinant proteins and other recombinant biomolecules in plants and other organisms for pharmaceutical preparations and for other applications, and consultation services for the discovery and production of pharmaceutical preparations] |
3 cited registrations, all owned by the same entity: "LEXGEN" [providing online access to a genomic database consisting of molecular biology and genetic research information; computer services in the nature of providing online publication, namely, scientific journals and newsletters in the field of molecular biology and genetic research; providing online molecular biology and genetic research information and resources to others; collaborative research and development services in the field of molecular biology and genetics]; "LEXGEN.COM" [providing an online computer database in the field of genetic research]; "LEXVISION" [providing a database consisting of molecular biology and genetic research information] |
No |
5-30 |
OPP |
91165925 |
Spark Networks plc v. JewishAmericanSingles.com, Inc. |
Counterclaim to Cancel on ground that opposer’s mark is deceptively misdescriptive [2(e)(1)] or primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive [2(e)(3)]; (Note: Opposer withdrew its opposition; proceeding went forward to trial on counterclaim only.) |
Counter-claim to Cancel Dismissed |
"AMERICAN SINGLES" [computer services, namely, providing a web site for facilitating the introduction of individuals] |
"JEWISHAMERICANSINGLES.COM" (and design) [on-line dating and social networking services] |
|
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (MR)=Motion to Reopen; (R)=Request for Reconsideration (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR
MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop
is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine.
If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required
for the correspondence. See the listing under "Special Mail Stops
Applicable To Both Patent And Trademark Mail" for additional mail stops
for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document
should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail
stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each
special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be
significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are
intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in
the address.
Some correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the Office's
Internet Web site http://www.uspto.gov for additional information.
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
Mail Stop _____
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should
be omitted from the address.
NEW: The Mail Stop description for Mail Stop Patent Ext. has been
revised and a new Mail Stop for patent term extension requests under
35 U.S.C. 156 has been added as Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account
Replenishments (see 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR
5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address correspondence to be delivered by other
delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL, Laser, Action,
Purolater, etc.) as follows:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 12 Contributions to the Examiner Education Program.
Mail Stop 313(c) Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a
patent application from issue after payment of
the issue fee and any papers associated with the
petition, including papers necessary for a
continuing application or a request for
continued examination (RCE).
Mail Stop AF Amendments and other responses after final
rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any
request for pre-appeal brief conference)),
other than an appeal brief.
Mail Stop Amendment Information disclosure statements, drawings, and
replies to Office actions in patent applications
with or without an amendment to the application or
a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for
replies after final rejection.).
Mail Stop Appeal For appeal briefs or other briefs under
Brief-Patents part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192).
Mail Stop Public comments regarding patent related
Comments-Patents regulations and procedures.
Mail Stop Conversion Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a
nonprovisional application to a provisional
application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3)
to convert a provisional application to a
nonprovisional application.
Mail Stop DD Disclosure Documents or materials related to the
Disclosure Document Program. (A disclosure document
is NOT an information disclosure statement.)
Instead of filing a disclosure document, inventors
are encouraged to file a provisional patent
application.
Mail Stop EBC Mail for the Electronic Business Center including:
Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer
Numbers, and Requests for Customer Number Data
Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A,
respectively) and Customer Number Upload
Spreadsheets and Cover Letters.
Mail Stop Expedited Only to be used for the initial filing of
Design design applications accompanied by a
request for expedited examination under
37 CFR 1.155.
Mail Stop Express Requests for abandonment of a patent
Abandonment application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138,
including any petitions under 37 CFR
1.138(c) to expressly abandon an
application to avoid publication of the
application. (Applicants are encouraged to
transmit the requests by facsimile to
703-305-8568.)
Mail Stop Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term
Hatch-Waxman PTE extension based on regulatory review of a product
subject to pre-market review by a regulating
agency. This mail stop is also to be used for
additional correspondence regarding the
application for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial
requests be hand-carried to:
Office of Patent Legal Administration
Room MDW 7D55
600 Dulany Street (Madison Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop ILS Correspondence relating to international patent
classification, exchanges and standards.
Mail Stop Issue Fee All communications following the receipt of a
PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent
should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee,
unless advised to the contrary.
Assignments are the exception. Assignments
(with cover sheets) should be faxed to
571-273-0140, electronically submitted
(http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a
separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop
Assignment Recordation Services,
Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
as shown below.
Mail Stop L&R All documents pertaining to applications subject
to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or
national-security classified and required to be
processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for
foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b)
for which expedited handling is requested, and
petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR
5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and
Review:
Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director
Room 4B41
501 Dulany Street (Knox Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop Missing Requests for a corrected filing receipt and
Parts replies to OIPE notices such as the Notice
of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete
Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide
Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing
Parts of Application, and associated papers and
fees.
Mail Stop MPEP Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure.
Mail Stop Patent Ext. Applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any
communications relating thereto. This mail stop
is limited to petitions for patent term extension
under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed
between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent
term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for
applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
For applications for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
For applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed
together with the payment of the issue fee, use
Mail Stop Issue Fee.
Mail Stop Patent Submission of comments regarding search templates.
Search Template
Comments
Mail Stop PCT Mail related to international applications filed
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the
international phase and in the national phase
under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a
Notification of Acceptance of Application Under
35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form
PCT/DO/EO/903).
Mail Stop Petition Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions
including petitions to revive and petitions to
accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance
fees.
Mail Stop PGPUB Correspondence regarding publication of patent
applications not otherwise provided, including
requests for early publication made after filing,
rescission of non-publication request, corrected
patent application publication, refund of
publication fee.
Mail Stop Post In patented files: requests for changes of
Issue correspondence address, powers of attorney,
revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal of
attorney and submissions under 37 CFR 1.501.
Designation of, or changes to, a fee address
should be addressed to Mail Stop M Correspondence.
Requests for Certificate of Correction need no
special mail stop, but should be mailed to the
attention of Certificate of Correction Branch.
Mail Stop RCE Requests for continued examination under
37 CFR 1.114.
Mail Stop Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction
Reconstruction of lost patent files.
Mail Stop Ex Parte Requests for Reexamination for original request
Reexam papers and for all subsequent corresponcence other
than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Inter Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination
Partes Reexam for original request papers and for all
subsequent correspondence other than
correspondence to the Office of the
Solicitor (see 37 CFR Secs. 1.1(a)(3) and
1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Reissue All new and continuing reissue application filings.
Mail Stop Sequence Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for
applications with sequence listings, when the CRF
is not being filed with the patent application.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
Please address trademark-related mail to be delivered by the United
States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment
Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark
documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as
follows:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be mailed to:
Madrid Processing Unit
600 Delaney Street
MDE-7B87
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Trademark Administrator
regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to:
Letter of Protest
ATTN: Trademark Administrator
600 Delaney Street
MDE-4B89
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener
Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to:
Director, USPTO
ATTN: FQA
600 Delaney Street, MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the
recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to:
Natvie American Tribal Insignia
ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks
600 Delaney Street
MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Trademark-related mail to be delivered by other delivery services
(Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL, Laser, Action, Purolater, etc.),
by courier or by hand to the Trademark Operation, the Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board, the Office's Madrid Processing Unit, Letters of Protest,
FQA or NATI, must be delivered to:
Trademark Assistance Center
Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Please address mail to be directed to a mail stop identified below to
be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows (unless
otherwise instructed):
Mail Stop _____
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 3 Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC.
Mail Stop 6 Mail for the Office of Procurement.
Mail Stop 8 All papers for the Office of the Solicitor except
communications relating to pending litigation and
disciplinary proceedings; papers relating to
pending litigation in court cases shall be mailed
only to Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 15667,
Arlington, VA 22215 and papers related to pending
disciplinary proceedings before the Administrative
Law Judge or the Director shall be mailed only to
the Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 16116,
Arlington, VA 22215.
Mail Stop 11 Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS).
Mail Stop 13 Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division.
Mail Stop 16 Mail related to refund requests, other than
requests for refund of a patent application
publication fee. Such requests should be directed
to Mail Stop PGPub.
Mail Stop 17 Invoices directed to the Office of Finance.
Mail Stop 24 Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program,
including complaints about Invention Promoters.
Mail Stop 171 Vacancy Announcement Applications.
Mail Stop Assignment All assignment documents, security interests,
Recordation Services and other documents to be recorded in the
Assignment records. Note that documents with
cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or
submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov)
are processed much more quickly than those
submitted by mail.
Mail Stop Mail for the Office of Congressional Relations.
Congressional
Relations
Mail Stop Document All requests for certified or uncertified
Services copies of patent or trademark documents.
Mail Stop EEO Mail for the Office of Civil Rights.
Mail Stop Mail for the Office of Enforcement.
Enforcement
Mail Stop Interference Communications relating to interferences and
applications and patents involved in interference.
Mail Stop Mail for the Office of International Relations.
International
Relations
Mail Stop M Mail to designate or change a fee
Correspondence address, or other correspondence related to
maintenance fees, except payments of
maintenance fees in patents. See below for
the address for maintenance fee payments.
Mail Stop OED Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Maintenance Fee Payments
Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov,
payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the
United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979070
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn:
Maintenance Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier
(e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) may be delivered to:
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Maintenance Fee
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Deposit Account Replenishments
To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments
through the United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979065
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts)
using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS,
etc.) may be delivered to:
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Deposit Accounts
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Top of Notices
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries |
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents and Trademarks
Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries
The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Depository
Libraries (PTDLs), provide public access to patent and trademark
information received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO). This information includes all issued patents, all registered
trademarks, the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
search tools such as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental
information in a variety of formats including online, optical disc,
microfilm and paper. Each PTDL also offers access to USPTO resources on
the Internet and to PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system
used by patent examiners that is not available on the Internet.
Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information.
All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges
associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of
service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these
collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in
advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience.
State Name of Library Telephone Contact
Alabama Auburn University Libraries (334) 844-1737
Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3620
Alaska Anchorage: Z. J. Loussac Public
Library (907) 562-7323
Arkansas Little Rock: Arkansas State
Library (501) 682-2053
California Los Angeles Public Library (213) 228-7220
Riverside: University of
California, Riverside Libraries (951) 827-3226
Sacramento: California State
Library (916) 654-0069
San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5813
San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4500
Sunnyvale Public Library (408) 730-7300
Colorado Denver Public Library (720) 865-1711
Delaware Newark: University of Delaware
Library (302) 831-2965
Dist. of Columbia Washington: Howard University
Libraries (202) 806-7252
Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County
Main Library (954) 357-7444
Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665
Orlando: University of Central
Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562
Georgia Atlanta: Price Gilbert Memorial
Library, Georgia Institute
of Technology (404) 894-1395
Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Public
Library System (808) 586-3477
Idaho Moscow: University of Idaho Library (208) 885-6235
Illinois Chicago Public Library (312) 747-4450
Springfield: Illinois State Library (217) 782-5659
Indiana Indianapolis-Marion County Public
Library (317) 269-1741
West Lafayette Siegesmund
Engineering Library,
Purdue University (765) 494-2872
Iowa Des Moines: State Library of Iowa (515) 242-6541
Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita
State University 1 (800) 572-8368
Kentucky Louisville Free Public Library (502) 574-1611
Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton
Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875
Maine Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library,
University of Maine (207) 581-1678
Maryland Baltimore: University of Baltimore
Law Library (410) 837-4554
College Park: Engineering and
Physical Sciences Library,
University of Maryland (301) 405-9157
Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library,
University of Massachusetts (413) 545-2765
Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400
Ext. 4256
Michigan Ann Arbor: Media Union Library,
University of Michigan (734) 647-5735
Big Rapids: Abigail S. Timme
Library, Ferris State University (231) 592-3602
Detroit: Public Library (313) 833-1450
Minnesota Minneapolis Public Library and
Information Center (612) 630-6000
Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library
Commission (601) 961-4111
Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600
Ext. 724
St. Louis Public Library (314) 241-2288
Ext. 390
Montana Butte: Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology Library (406) 496-4281
Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411
Nevada Las Vegas--Clark County Library
District (702) 507-3421
Reno: University of Nevada, Reno
Library (775) 784-6500
Ext. 257
New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779
Piscataway: Library of Science and
Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895
New Mexico Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico General Library (505) 277-4412
New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 474-5355
Buffalo and Erie County Public
Library (716) 858-7101
Rochester Public Library (716) 428-8110
New York Library
(The Research Libraries) (212) 592-7000
Stony Brook: Engineering Library,
State University of New York (631) 632-7148
North Carolina Charlotte (704) 687-2241
Raleigh: D.H. Hill Library, North
Carolina State University (919) 515-2935
North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library,
University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888
Ohio Akron - Summit County Public (330) 643-9075
Library
Cincinnati and Hamilton County,
Public Library of (513) 369-6932
Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870
Columbus: Ohio State University
Libraries (614) 292-3022
Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar
Library, Wright State
University (937) 775-3521
Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5209
Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State
University Center for International
Trade Development (405) 744-7086
Oregon Portland: Paul L. Boley Law Library,
Lewis & Clark College (503) 768-6786
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, The Free Library of (215) 686-5331
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of (412) 622-3138
University Park: Pattee Library,
Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico Mayaquez General Library,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000
Ext. 3244
Bayamon, Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 786-5225
Rhode Island Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027
South Carolina Clemson University Libraries (864) 656-3024
South Dakota Rapid City: Devereaux Library,
South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology (605) 394-1275
Tennessee Nashville: Stevenson Science
Library, Vanderbilt University (615) 322-2717
Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering
Library, University of Texas at
Austin (512) 495-4500
College Station: West Campus
Library, Texas A & M University (979) 845-2111
Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468
Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice
University (713) 348-5483
Lubbock: Texas Tech University (806) 742-2282
San Antonio Public Library (210) 207-2500
Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library,
University of Utah (801) 581-8394
Vermont Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library,
University of Vermont (802) 656-2542
Virginia Richmond: James Branch Cabell
Library, Virginia Commonwealth
University (804) 828-1101
Washington Seattle: Engineering Library,
University of Washington (206) 543-0740
West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library,
West Virginia University (304) 293-4695
Ext. 5113
Wisconsin Madison: Kurt F. Wendt Library,
University of Wisconsin Madison (608) 262-6845
Milwaukee Public Library (414) 286-3051
Wyoming Cheyenne: Wyoming State Library (307) 777-7281
Top of Notices
Patent Technology Centers |
PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
JON W. DUDAS, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
STEPHEN M. PINKOS, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
JOHN DOLL, Commissioner for Patents
PEGGY FOCARINO, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
JOHN LOVE, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy
AVERAGE
FILING DATE OF
APPLICATIONS
RECEIVING A
FIRST OFFICE
CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTION IN THE
TELEPHONE and FAX LAST 3
TECHNOLOGY CENTERS NUMBERS MONTHS*
1600 BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC
CHEMISTRY
1610 Pharmaceutical formulations, 571-272-0700 11/28/04
method of treatment using FAX 571-273-8300
bio-affecting agents, drug
delivery systems, steroids,
herbicidal and pesticidal
compositions, and cosmetics
1620 Organic chemistry 571-272-0700 04/26/05
FAX 571-273-8300
1630 Molecular biology, 571-272-0600 04/05/05
bioinformatics, nucleic FAX 571-273-8300
acids, recombinant DNA
and RNA, Gene regulation,
gene therapy, nucleic acid
amplification, transgenic
animals and recombinant
plants, combinatorial/
computational chemistry.
1640 Immunology, receptor/ligands, 571-272-0600 01/31/05
cytokines, recombinant FAX 571-273-8300
hormones, engineered
antibodies, cancer immunology,
and molecular biology thereof
1650 Fermentation, microbiology, 571-272-0500 06/18/05
plant and animal extracts, FAX 571-273-8300
peptides, isolated and/or
recombinant proteins and
enzymes, protein
crystallography, and enzyme
assays
1660 Plants 571-272-0700 11/26/05
FAX 571-273-8300
1700/ CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING, AND DESIGNS
2900
1710 Synthetic resins 571-272-1300 04/02/05
FAX 571-273-8300
1720 Fluid separation and 571-272-1300 04/15/05
agitation, metal FAX 571-273-8300
foundry, welding,
plastic molding
apparatus, fuels and
related compositions
1730 Glass and paper making, 571-272-1300 09/02/05
tobacco, non-metallic FAX 571-273-8300
molding, adhesive
bonding, tires and
coating apparatus
1740 Metallurgy, 571-272-1200 04/02/05
electrochemistry, FAX 571-273-8300
cleaning, disinfecting,
sterilizing, analytical
chemistry and wave energy
1750 Chemical products and 571-272-1200 01/28/05
processes, solar cells FAX 571-273-8300
and sputtering apparatuses
1760 Food technology, 571-272-1100 05/18/05
petroleum processing, FAX 571-273-8300
coating and etching
1770 Stock materials and 571-272-1100 02/26/05
miscellaneous articles FAX 571-273-8300
2900 Designs 571-272-2100 01/15/06
FAX 571-273-8300
2100 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE SOFTWARE AND
INFORMATION SECURITY
2110 Computer architecture 571-272-0900 02/18/05
FAX 571-273-8300
2120 Miscellaneous computer 571-272-1400 01/28/05
applications FAX 571-273-8300
2130 Cryptography, security 571-272-7220 04/21/04
FAX 571-273-8300
2140/ Computer networks 571-272-0800 11/08/03
2150 FAX 571-273-8300
2160/ Database and file management/ 571-272-7220 03/11/04
2170 Graphical user interface FAX 571-273-8300
2180 Computer architecture 571-272-0900 12/26/04
FAX 571-273-8300
2190 Interprocess communications 571-272-1400 01/11/04
and software development FAX 571-273-8300
2600 COMMUNICATIONS
2610 Digital Communications, General 571-272-2600 04/18/04
Communications, Optical FAX 571-273-8300
Communications, Telephony,
Audio, Multiplex
Communications, Cellular
Telephony, Radio and Satellite
Communications
2620 Television and TV Recording, 571-272-2600 04/11/04
Video Distribution, Image FAX 571-273-8300
Analysis, (Fax, Printing,
Printing Network, Scanners),
Speech, (Fax, Disk Drive),
Computer Graphics, Display
Systems
2800 SEMICONDUCTORS, ELECTRICAL AND OPTICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
2810 Semiconductors and 571-272-1650 08/26/05
electrical circuits, FAX 571-273-8300
static memory and
digital logic
2820 Semiconductors and 571-272-1950 08/18/05
electrical circuits, FAX 571-273-8300
static memory and
digital logic
2830/ Power generation and 571-272-1850 10/28/05
2840 distribution, music, FAX 571-273-8300
electrical components
and control circuits
2850/ Photocopying, 571-272-1850 08/05/05
2860 recorders, printing, FAX 571-273-8300
measuring and testing
2870 Liquid crystals, optical 571-272-1550 08/18/05
elements, optical systems, FAX 571-273-8300
fiber optics, lasers, electric
lamps, registers, optics
measuring and radiant energy
2880 Liquid crystals, optical 571-272-1550 09/18/05
elements, optical systems, FAX 571-273-8300
fiber optics, lasers, electric
lamps, registers, optics
measuring and radiant energy
2890 Semiconductor, Electrical, 571-272-2800 08/02/05
Optical Systems & Components FAX 571-273-8300
3600 TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, CONSTRUCTION, AGRICULTURE,
LICENSING AND REVIEW
3610 Surface transportation 571-272-5250 07/18/05
FAX 571-273-8300
3620 Electronic Commerce 571-272-5350 07/28/03
FAX 571-273-8300
3630 Static structures, 571-272-5350 05/18/05
supports and furniture FAX 571-273-8300
3640 Aeronautics, 571-272-5150 09/28/05
agriculture, fishing, FAX 571-273-8300
trapping, vermin destroying,
plant and animal husbandry,
weaponry, nuclear systems
and licensing & review
3650 Material handling and 571-272-5250 06/02/05
article handling FAX 571-273-8300
3660 Computerized vehicle 571-272-5150 07/02/05
controls and navigation, FAX 571-273-8300
radio wave, optical and
acoustic wave communication
3670 Wells, earth boring/ 571-272-5150 08/28/05
moving/working, FAX 571-273-8300
excavating, mining
harvesters, bridges,
roads, petroleum,
closures, connections,
and hardware
3680 Machine elements 571-272-5250 04/11/05
and power transmissions FAX 571-273-8300
3700 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS
3710 Amusement and 571-272-3750 03/31/05
education devices, FAX 571-273-8300
packages and containers
3720 Manufacturing devices 571-272-4050 08/08/05
and processes, machine FAX 571-273-8300
tools and hand tools
3730 Medical instruments, 571-272-2975 11/26/04
diagnostic equipment, FAX 571-273-8300
treatment devices,
surgery, surgical
supplies
3740 Thermal and combustion 571-272-3750 07/26/05
technology, motive and FAX 571-273-8300
fluid power systems
3750 Fluid handling and 571-272-3750 05/15/05
dispensing, and Textile FAX 571-273-8300
Manufacturing and
Apparel
3760 Body treatment, 571-272-2975 04/08/05
kinestherapy, and FAX 571-273-8300
exercising
3770 Respirators, Therapeutic 571-272-2975 12/02/04
Support, Splints, Braces, FAX 571-273-8300
Bandages and Birth Control
Devices
3780 Package and Article Carriers, 571-272-2975 12/02/04
Envelopes, Purses, Wallets, FAX 571-273-8300
Receptacles, Bottles and Jars
* The information provided above reflects an average for the workgroup.
If you need more specific information about an individual application,
please call the appropriate customer service office above.
TECHNOLOGY CENTERS DIRECTOR
1600 BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ORGANIC
1610 Pharmaceutical formulations, method Bruce M. Kisliuk
of treatment using bio-affecting
agents, drug delivery systems,
steroids, herbicidal and pesticidal
compositions, and cosmetics
1620 Organic chemistry George C. Elliott
1630 Molecular biology, bioinformatics, George C. Elliott
nucleic acids, recombinant DNA and
RNA, Gene regulation, gene therapy,
nucleic acid amplification,transgenic
animals and recombinant plants,
combinatorial/computational chemistry.
1640 Immunology, receptor/ligands, John L. LeGuyader
cytokines, recombinant hormones,
engineered antibodies, cancer
immunology, and molecular biology
thereof
1650 Fermentation, microbiology, plant and Bruce M. Kisliuk
animal extracts, peptides, isolated
and/or recombinant proteins and
enzymes, protein crystallography,
and enzyme assays
1660 Plants George C. Elliott
1700/ CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING
2900 AND DESIGNS
1710 Synthetic resins Gary G. Jones
1720 Fluid separation and agitation, Gary G. Jones
metal foundry, welding, plastic
modeling apparatus, fuels and
related compositions
1730 Glass and paper making, tobacco, Gary G. Jones
non-metallic molding, adhesive
bonding, tires and coating apparatus
1740 Metallurgy, electrochemistry, Jacqueline M. Stone
cleaning, disinfecting, sterilizing,
analytical chemistry and wave energy
1750 Chemical products and processes, Jacqueline M. Stone
solar cells and sputtering apparatuses
1760 Food technology, petroleum processing, Marian C. Knode
coating and etching
1770 Stock materials and miscellaneous Marian C. Knode
articles
2900 Designs Jacqueline M. Stone
2100 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE SOFTWARE AND
INFORMATION SECURITY
2110 Computer architecture Jack B. Harvey
2120 Miscellaneous computer applications Wendy Garber
2130 Cryptography, security James Dwyer
2140 Computer networks Jack B. Harvey
2150 Computer networks Jack B. Harvey
2160 Database and file management James Dwyer
2170 Graphical user interface Wendy Garber
2180 Computer architecture Jack B. Harvey
2190 Interprocess communications and Wendy Garber
software development
2600 COMMUNICATIONS
2611 Digital communications Jin F. Ng
2612 General communications Mark R. Powell
2613 Optical communications Jin F. Ng
2614 Telephony Mark R. Powell
2615 Audio Mark R. Powell
2616 Multiplex communications Jin F. Ng
2617 Cellular telephony Wanda Walker
2618 Radio and Satellite Communications Mark R. Powell
2621 Television and TV Recording Wanda Walker
2622 Cameras Wanda Walker
2623 Video distribution Wanda Walker
2624 Image analysis Andrew I. Faile
2625 Fax, printing, printing network, Andrew I. Faile
scanners
2626 Speech Mark R. Powell
2627 Disc drives Mark R. Powell
2628 Computer graphics Mark R. Powell
2629 Display systems Mark R. Powell
2800 SEMICONDUCTORS, ELECTRICAL AND OPTICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
2810 Semiconductors and electrical circuits, Sharon A. Gibson
Static memory and digital logic
2820 Semiconductors and electrical circuits, Robert Oberleitner
Static memory and digital logic
2830/ Power generation and distribution, Richard K. Seidel
2840 music, electrical components
and control circuits
2850/ Photocopying, recorders, printing, Richard K. Seidel
2860 measuring and testing
2870/ Liquid crystals, optical elements, Janice A. Falcone
2880 optical systems, fiber optics, lasers,
electric lamps, registers, optics
measuring and radiant energy
2890 Semiconductor, electrical, optical Sharon A. Gibson
systems & components
3600 TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, CONSTRUCTION, AGRICULTURE,
LICENSING AND REVIEW
3610 Surface transportation Katherine Matecki
3620 Electronic commerce Wynn W. Coggins
3630 Static structures, supports and Wynn W. Coggins
furniture
3640 Aeronautics, agriculture, fishing, Donald T. Hajec
trapping, vermin destroying, plant
and animal husbandry, weaponry,
nuclear systems and licensing
& review
3650 Material and article handling Katherine Matecki
3660 Computerized vehicle controls and Donald T. Hajec
navigation, radio wave, optical and
acoustic wave communication
3670 Wells, earth boring/moving/working, Donald T. Hajec
excavating, mining, harvesters,
bridges, roads, petroleum, closures,
connections, and hardware
3680 Machine elements and power Katherine Matecki
transmissions
3700 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS
3710, Amusement and education devices, Karen M. Young
3721, packages and containers
3727,
and
3728
3720 Packages and containers; Frederick R. Schmidt
3720 Manufacturing devices and processes, Frederick R. Schmidt
machine tools and hand tools
3730 Medical instruments, diagnostic Frederick R. Schmidt
equipment, treatment devices, surgery,
surgical supplies
3740 Thermal and combustion technology, Karen M. Young
motive and fluid power systems
3750 Fluid handling and dispensing Karen M. Young
3760 Body treatment, kinestherapy, Frederick R. Schmidt
exercising, textile manufacturing
and apparel
Top of Notices
Subscription/Copy Information |
ELECTRONIC OFFICIAL GAZETTE
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PATENTS
(eOG:P)
The Electronic Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Patents (eOG:P) provides the information contained in the paper version of the
Official Gazette in electronic format on CD-ROM. Similar to the paper OG, the eOG:P is published every Tuesday and includes bibliographic information, a
representative claim, and a drawing (if applicable) of each patent issued that week. Patents are accessible by type of patent (utility, plant, etc.), classification
(class or class/subclass), patentee name, and geographical location. Links enable users to "jump" to a specific patent from these various indexes. The eOG:P is
sold as an annual subscription or as single copies.
Subscriptions are $430.00 per year, with single copies available for $20.00. For single copy purchases, please specify date and volume/issue number. Order
forms are available in MS Word® or Adobe® Acrobat® format.
Get the MS Word® format
here.
or
Get the Acrobat® version
here.
Go here if you do not have
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader
installed.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Information Products Division
MDW - 4C18
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
(571) 272-5600
or
email at
IPD@uspto.gov
Top of Notices
TO VIEW PDF FILES
This CD-ROM product includes PDF files which requires
a PDF file reader program. Adobe® Systems Inc. provides such
a reader at their web site. This
link requires connection to the internet.
If you do not have connection to the internet this
CD also contains version 5 of the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader.
Click to install Adobe Acrobat Reader
5. For the latest version of the reader please visit the
Adobe® web site.
Top of Notices