MPEP Section 2247.01, Examples of Decisions on Request for Reexamination

Executive summary:

This document contains Section 2247.01 ("Examples of Decisions on Request for Reexamination") of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the "M.P.E.P."), Eighth Edition, Eighth Revision (July 2010). This page was last updated in January 2011. You may return to the section index to find a particular section. Alternatively, you may search the MPEP using the search box that appears on the left side of every page of BitLaw--you may restrict your search to the MPEP on the search results page.

For more information on patent law, please see the Patent Section of BitLaw. For patent services, see the Beck & Tysver pages.

Previous Section (§2247) | Next Section (§2248)

2247.01 Examples of Decisions on Request for Reexamination [R-7]

Examples of decisions on requests for ex parte reexamination are provided below. The first example is a grant of an ex parte reexamination. The second example is a denial of an ex parte reexamination. The examiner should leave the paper number blank since IFW files do not have a paper number.

DECISION
A substantial new question of patentability affecting Claims 1 - 3 of United States Patent Number 9,999,999 to Key is raised by the request for reexamination. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, Office policy requires that reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550 (a)) and provides for extensions of time in reexamination proceedings as set forth in 37 CFR 1.550 (c). The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a), to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving Patent No. 9,999,999 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The request * > sets forth < that Requester considers that Claims 1 - 3 are unpatentable over Smith taken with Jones. The request further * > sets forth < that Requester considers that Claim 4 is unpatentable over the Horn publication. It is agreed that the consideration of Smith raises a substantial new question of patentability as to Claims 1 - 3 of the Key patent. As pointed out on pages 2 - 3 of the request, Smith teaches using an extruder supported on springs at a 30 degree angle to the horizontal but does not teach the specific polymer of Claims 1 - 3 which is extruded. The teaching as to spring-supporting the extruder at 30 degrees was not present in the prosecution of the application which became the Key patent. Further, there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. Accordingly, Smith raises a substantial new question of patentability as to Claims 1 - 3, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Key patent. The Horn publication does not raise a new question of patentability as to Claim 4 because its teaching as to the extrusion die is a substantial equivalent of the teaching of the die by the Dorn patent which was considered in the prosecution of the application which became the Key patent. ** > Accordingly, claim 4 will not be reexamined.
Finally, reexamination has not been requested for claims 5 - 20 of the Key patent. Accordingly, claims 5 - 20 will not be reexamined.
Claims 1 - 3 of the Key patent will be reexamined. <
All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:
By Mail to:	Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam Attn: Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to:	(571) 273-9900 Central Reexamination Unit
By hand:	Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Kenneth Schor at telephone number (571) 272-0000.
	Kenneth M. Schor Kenneth M. Schor Primary Examiner > CRU < Art Unit * > 3998 <
	ARI Conferee
	BZ Conferee

DECISION
No substantial new question of patentability is raised by the request for reexamination and prior art cited therein for the reasons set forth below. The request indicates that Requester considers that a substantial new question of patentability is raised as to Claims 1 - 2 based on Smith taken with Jones. The request further indicates that Requester considers that a substantial new question of patentability is raised as to Claim 3 based on Smith taken with Jones and when further taken with the Horn publication. The claims of the Key patent, for which reexamination is requested, require that an extruder be supported on springs at an angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal, while a specific chlorinated polymer is extruded through a specific extrusion die. The Smith patent does not raise a substantial new question of patentability as to the Key claims. Smith's teaching as to the extruder being spring-supported at 30 degrees is a substantial equivalent of the teaching of same by the Dorn patent which was considered in the prosecution of the application which became the Key patent. In the request for reexamination, it is argued that Jones teaches the extrusion die. However, Jones was also used in the prosecution of the Key application to teach the extrusion die. The request argued that the Horn publication shows the connection of the support means to the extruder via bolts, as recited in Claim 3 of the Key patent. Although this teaching was not provided in the prosecution of the Key application, the teaching would not be considered to be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding whether or not the Key claims are patentable. The use of a bolt instead of a screw (which was taught by the art of record in the Key application) to provide the connection has not been shown in the request to be important in the context of attaching the support means to the extruder. The references set forth in the request have been considered both alone and in combination. They fail to raise a substantial new question of patentability as to any one of the Key patent claims. Accordingly, the request for reexamination is DENIED.
All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:
By Mail to:	Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam Attn: Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to:	(571) 273-9900 Central Reexamination Unit
By hand:	Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Kenneth Schor at telephone number (571) 272-0000.
	Kenneth M. Schor Kenneth M. Schor Primary Examiner > CRU < Art Unit * > 3998 <
	ARI Conferee
	BZ Conferee