Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2646.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:39:24+00:00

Document:
35 U.S.C. 313 Inter partes reexamination order by Director.
If, in a determination made under section 312(a), the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting a claim of a patent is raised, the determination shall include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The order may be accompanied by the initial action of the Patent and Trademark Office on the merits of the inter partes reexamination conducted in accordance with section 314.
If, in a determination made under section 312(a), the Director finds that it has been shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request, the determination shall include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The order may be accompanied by the initial action of the Patent and Trademark Office on the merits of the inter partes reexamination conducted in accordance with section 314.
37 C.F.R. 1.931 Order for inter partes reexamination.
(a) If a substantial new question of patentability is found, the determination will include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question.
(b) If the order for inter partes reexamination resulted from a petition pursuant to § 1.927, the inter partes reexamination will ordinarily be conducted by an examiner other than the examiner responsible for the initial determination under § 1.923.
(a) If it is found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request, the determination will include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question of whether the requester will prevail.
-For a request filed prior to September 16, 2011 - that a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) has been raised affecting a claim of a patent.
-For a request filed beginning September 16, 2011 and ending September 15, 2012 - that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail (RLP) with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request.
These conclusions (depending on when reexamination was filed) will be referred to collectively as a conclusion that "there is a SNQ/RLP".
The decision will (A) identify all claims and issues, (B) identify the patents and/or printed publications relied upon, and (C) provide a brief statement of the rationale supporting each SNQ/RLP.
In the examiner’s decision, the examiner must identify at least one SNQ/RLP and explain how the prior art patents and/or printed publications establish that SNQ/RLP. In a simple case, this may entail adoption of the reasons provided by the third party requester. The references relied on by the examiner should be cited on a PTO-892 form, unless already listed on a form PTO/SB/08A or 08B, or PTO/SB/42 (or on a form having a format equivalent to one of these forms) submitted by the third party requester. A copy of the reference should be supplied only where it has not been previously supplied to the patent owner and third party requester.
Where it is not clear that a patent or printed publication pre-dates the patent claims, a discussion should be provided as to why the patent or printed publication is deemed to be available against the patent claims.
If arguments are raised by the third party requester as to grounds not based on 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 1.906(c).
In the decision on the request, the examiner does not decide the ultimate question of patentability of the claims. Rather, the examiner only decides whether there is a SNQ/RLP established sufficient to grant the request and order reexamination.
The decision granting the request is made using form PTOL-2063 as a cover sheet. See MPEP § 2647.01 for an example of a decision granting a request for inter partes reexamination.
Form Paragraph 26.01 is used at the beginning of each decision letter granting reexamination.
A substantial new question of patentability affecting claim  of United States Patent Number  is raised by the present request for inter partes reexamination.
Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in inter partes reexamination proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 314(c) requires that inter partes reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.937 ). Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.956. Extensions of time are not available for third party requester comments, because a comment period of 30 days from service of patent owner’s response is set by statute. 35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2).
The present request for inter partes reexamination establishes a reasonable likelihood that requester will prevail with respect to claim  of United States Patent Number .
Form paragraph 26.73 is used at the end of each decision letter granting reexamination that is not being mailed concurrently with the first Office action on patentability (see MPEP § 2660).
After the reexamination file has been reviewed in the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) to ensure that it is ready for examination, the reexamination proceeding is assigned to an examiner.
In the event the CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) believes that another Art Unit within the CRU should examine the reexamination file, see MPEP § 2637 for procedures for transferring the reexamination file.
After the examiner receives the new inter partes reexamination file, the examiner prepares for and sets up a panel review conference as per MPEP § 2671.03, to discuss the issuance of a decision on the request for reexamination, and, where applicable, a first Office action to accompany the decision. The examiner may prepare the decision on the request for reexamination, and, where applicable, the first Office action to accompany the decision after the conference, or may prepare the decision on the request for reexamination, and, where applicable, the first Office action prior to the conference and revise it as needed after the conference.
The conference is conducted. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary decision to grant reexamination, the decision on the request for reexamination, and any first Office action to accompany the decision (also confirmed), is completed and signed by the examiner, with the two, or more, other conferees initialing the action (as "conferee") to indicate their presence in the conference. A transmittal form PTOL-2070 with the third party requester’s address are completed, if a copy for mailing is not already available. The transmittal form PTOL-2070 is used to forward copies of Office actions (and any references cited in the actions) to the third party requester. Whenever an Office action is issued, a copy of this form is made and attached to a copy of the Office action. The use of this form removes the need to retype the third party requester’s address each time a mailing is required. In conjunction with the mailing, any appropriate processing (e.g., PALM work, update scanning) is carried out by the staff of the CRU.
A substantive determination by the Director of the Office to institute reexamination pursuant to a finding that the prior art patents or printed publications raise a substantial new question of patentability is not subject to review by petition or otherwise. See Joy Mfg. Co. v. Nat’l Mine Serv. Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 1127, 1 USPQ2d 1627 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Heinl v. Godici, 143 F.Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2001); see also Patlex Corp. v. Quigg, 680 F.Supp. 33, 6 USPQ2d 1296, 1298 (D.D.C. 1988) (the legislative scheme leaves the Director’s 35 U.S.C. 303 determination entirely to his discretion and not subject to judicial review). These decisions were rendered for ex parte reexamination; however, the holdings of these decisions apply equally for a SNQ finding in inter partes reexamination proceedings, since the language of 35 U.S.C. 303(c) (i.e., the ex parte reexamination statute) is also found in 35 U.S.C. 312(c) (i.e., the inter partes reexamination statute). In like manner, these decisions apply equally for a RLP finding in inter partes reexamination proceedings. Because the substantive determination is not subject to review by petition or otherwise, neither the patent owner nor the third party requester has a right to petition, or request reconsideration of, a finding that the prior art patents or printed publications raise a SNQ/RLP. There is no right to petition, as an "ultra vires" action by the Office, if the finding of a SNQ/RLP is based on reasons other than those urged by the third party requester (or based on less than all the grounds urged by the third party requester). Where the examiner determines that a date of a reference is early enough such that the reference constitutes prior art, that determination is not petitionable (with respect to vacating the examiner’s finding of a SNQ/RLP). Where the examiner determines that a reference is a printed publication (i.e., that the criteria for publication has been satisfied), that determination is also not petitionable. These matters cannot be questioned with respect to vacating the order granting reexamination.
(E) reexamination was ordered based on a duplicate copy of the request.
While a patent owner may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a)(3) to vacate a reexamination order as " ultra vires," such a petition should be rare, and will be granted only in a situation where the Office acted in "brazen defiance" of its statutory authority in granting the reexamination order. See Heinl, 143 F. Supp. 2d at 601-02. This occurs only where the Office applied the wrong standard in ordering reexamination; a petition is not to be filed to challenge the Office’s application of the correct standard, since such is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Petitions to vacate a reexamination order are delegated to the Director of Central Reexamination Unit (CRU).
When a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 is filed to vacate a reexamination order, the third party requester may file a single submission in opposition to the petition. Because reexamination proceedings are conducted with special dispatch, 35 U.S.C. 314(c), any such opposition by the third party requester must be filed within two weeks of the date upon which a copy of the original 37 CFR 1.181 petition was served on the third party requester to ensure consideration. It is advisable that, upon receipt and review of the served copy of such a 37 CFR 1.181 petition which the third party requester intends to oppose, the requester should immediately place a courtesy telephone call to the CRU SPRS to notify the Office that an opposition to the 37 CFR 1.181 petition will be filed. Whenever possible, filing of the opposition should be submitted electronically.
Any prior art citations under 37 CFR 1.501 submitted after the date of the decision ordering inter partes reexamination are stored until the reexamination is concluded. Note 37 CFR 1.902. After the reexamination proceeding is concluded, the submission is entered in the patent file. Submissions filed after the date of an order for reexamination will not be considered by the examiner during the reexamination. See MPEP § 2206. Note that 37 CFR 1.902 governs submissions of prior art that can be made by patent owners and third party requesters after reexamination has been ordered. Also note that written statements under 37 CFR 1.501 are not permitted to be filed in an inter partes reexamination. See MPEP § 2602.

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 2647
 § 2660
 § 2637
 § 2671
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2206
 § 2602