| Patents > Search Colections > MPEP > 2247 Decision on Request for Reexam-ination, Request Denied [R-5] - 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents |
|
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
2247 Decision on Request for Reexam-ination, Request Denied [R-5] - 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents
2247 Decision on Request for Reexam-ination, Request Denied [R-5]
The request for reexamination will be denied if a substantial new question of patentability is not found based on patents or printed publications.
If the examiner concludes that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the examiner should prepare a decision denying the reexamination request. Form paragraph 22.02 should be used as the introductory paragraph in a decision denying reexamination.
¶ 22.02 No New Question of Patentability
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 decision denying the request will then indicate, for each patent and printed publication cited in the request, why the citation is:
(A) Cumulative to the teachings of the art cited in the earlier concluded examination of the patent;
(B) Not available against the claims (e.g., the reference is not available as prior art because of its date or the reference is not a publication);
(C) Not important to a reasonable examiner in deciding whether any claim of the patent for which reexamination is requested is patentable, even though the citation is not cumulative and the citation is available against the claim; or
(D) One which was cited in the record of the patent and is barred by the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 2242 subsection II. A.
The examiner should also, in the decision respond to the substance of each argument raised by the requester which is based on patents or printed publications. If arguments are presented as to grounds not based on prior art patents or printed publications, such as those based on public use or on sale under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), or abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 102(c), the examiner should note that such grounds are improper for reexamination and are not considered or commented upon. See 37 CFR 1.552(c).
See MPEP § 2247.01 for an example of a decision denying a request for reexamination. The example in MPEP § 2247.01 is drafted for the case where the "request indicates that Requester considers that Claims 1-2 are unpatentable over Smith taken with Jones." There may, however, be a request that does not indicate the claims to be unpatentable over the art, but rather that a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the art. This may occur, for example, in a patent owner request filed to address prior art that raises a substantial new question of patentability but the claims are still patentable over the art. In such an instance, the decision on the request should not state that the "request indicates that Requester considers that Claims 1-2 are unpatentable over Smith taken with Jones." Rather, it should state that 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 decision denying a request for reexamination is mailed, and jurisdiction over the reexamination proceeding is retained by the **>Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)< to await any petition seeking review of the examiner's determination refusing reexamination. If such a petition is not filed within one (1) month of the examiner's determination denying reexamination, the *>CRU< then processes the reexamination file to provide the partial refund set forth in 37 CFR 1.26(c) (the Office of Finance no longer processes reexamination proceedings for a refund). The reexamination proceeding is then given a 420 status. A copy of the PALM "Application Number Information" screen and the "Contents" screen is printed, the printed copy is annotated by adding the comment "PROCEEDING CONCLUDED," and the annotated copy is then scanned into IFW using the miscellaneous letter document code.
The concluded reexamination file (electronic or paper) containing the request and the decision denying the request becomes part of the patent's record.
>PANEL REVIEW CONFERENCE
After an examiner has determined that the reexamination proceeding is ready for denying reexamination, the examiner will formulate a draft preliminary order denying reexamination. The examiner will then inform his/her Special Program Examiner (SPRE) of his/her intent to issue an order denying reexamination. The SPRE will convene a panel review conference, and the conference members will review the matter. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner's preliminary decision to deny reexamination, the proposed order denying reexamination shall be issued and signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing the action (as "conferee") to indicate their presence in the conference. If the conference does not confirm the examiner's preliminary decision, the examiner will reevaluate and issue an appropriate communication.<
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)