Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2658.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:43:30+00:00

Document:
37 C.F.R. 1.906 Scope of reexamination in inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(a) Claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and, with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
(b) Claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.
(c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. If such issues are raised by the patent owner or the third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, the existence of such issues will be noted by the examiner in the next Office action, in which case the patent owner may desire to consider the advisability of filing a reissue application to have such issues considered and resolved.
Inter partes reexamination differs from ex parte reexamination in matters of procedure, such as when the third party requester can participate, the types of Office actions and the timing of issuance of the Office actions, and the requirement for identification of the real party in interest. Inter partes reexamination also differs from ex parte reexamination in the estoppel effect it provides as to the third party requesters and when the initiation of a reexamination is prohibited.
Inter partes reexamination does not, however, differ from ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304 as to the substance to be considered in the proceeding.
Rejections on art in inter partes reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications under the first-to-invent prior art regime, or double patenting. See MPEP §§ 2258 and 2258.01 for a discussion of art rejections in reexamination proceedings based on prior art patents or printed publications. The discussion there includes making double patenting rejections and the use of admissions.
It is to be noted that the decisions cited in MPEP §§ 2258 and 2258.01 for applying the art in ex parte reexamination proceedings apply analogously in inter partes reexamination proceedings, since the statutory language relied upon in those decisions, which is taken from the ex parte reexamination statute, is also found in the inter partes reexamination statute.
Where new or amended claims are presented or where any part of the disclosure is amended, the claims of the reexamination proceeding are to be examined for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112. See MPEP § 2258 for a discussion of the examination based upon 35 U.S.C. 112 in an ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, which discussion applies to inter partes reexamination in the same way it applies to ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304. See also In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 99 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(holding that the Office is not prohibited from performing a 35 U.S.C. 112 written description priority analysis during reexamination).
Where new claims are presented, or where any part of the disclosure is amended, the claims of the inter partes reexamination proceeding should be examined under 35 U.S.C. 314, to determine whether they enlarge the scope of the original claims. 35 U.S.C. 314(a) states that "no proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent shall be permitted" in an inter partes reexamination proceeding.
A claim presented in a reexamination proceeding enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent being reexamined where the claim is broader than each and every claim of the patent. See MPEP § 1412.03 for guidance as to when the presented claim is considered to be a broadening claim as compared with the claims of the patent, i.e., what is broadening and what is not. If a claim is considered to be a broadening claim for purposes of reissue, it is likewise considered to be a broadening claim in reexamination.
Where the specification is amended in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner should make certain that the amendment to the specification does not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. An amendment to the specification can enlarge the scope of the claims by redefining the scope of the terms in a claim, even where the claims are not amended in any respect.
Any claim which enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 314(a). Form paragraph 26.03.01 is to be employed in making the rejection.
Claim  rejected under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) as enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent being reexamined. 35 U.S.C. 314(a) states that "no proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent shall be permitted" in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. A claim presented in a reexamination "enlarges the scope" of the patent claims where the claim is broader than the claims of the patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect, even though it may be narrower in other respects. .
The claim limitations which are considered to broaden the scope should be identified and explained in bracket 2. See MPEP § 2658.
Where some of the patent claims in a patent being reexamined have been the subject of a prior Office or court decision, see MPEP § 2642. Where other proceedings involving the patent are copending with the reexamination proceeding, see MPEP § 2686 - § 2686.04.
Patent claims not subject to reexamination because of their prior adjudication by a court should be identified. See MPEP § 2642. For handling a "live" claim dependent on a patent claim not subject to reexamination, see MPEP § 2660.03. All added claims will be examined.
Where grounds set forth in a prior Office or federal court decision, are not based on patents or printed publications, yet clearly raise questions as to the claims, the examiner’s Office action should clearly state that the claims have not been examined as to those grounds not based on patents or printed publications nor applicable portions of 35 U.S.C. 112 stated in the prior decision. See 37 CFR 1.906(c); see also In re Knight, 217 USPQ 294 (Comm’r Pat. 1982).
The Office’s determination in both the order for reexamination and the examination stage of the reexamination will generally be limited solely to a review of the "live" claims (i.e., existing claims not held invalid by a final decision, after all appeals) for which reexamination has been requested. If the requester was interested in having all of the claims reexamined, requester had the opportunity to include them in its request for reexamination. However, if the requester chose not to do so, those claim(s) for which reexamination was not requested will generally not be reexamined by the Office. It is further noted that 35 U.S.C. 311(b)(2) requires that a requester "set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested." If the requester fails to apply the art to certain claims, then the requester is not statutorily entitled to reexamination of such claims. If a request fails to set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the cited art to any claim for which reexamination is requested as required by 37 CFR 1.915(b), that claim will generally not be reexamined.
The decision to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested lies within the sole discretion of the Office, to be exercised based on the individual facts and situation of each individual case. If the Office chooses to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested, it is permitted to do so. In addition, the Office may always initiate a reexamination on its own initiative of the non-requested claim (35 U.S.C. 303(a) ). Similarly, if prior art patents or printed publications are discovered during reexamination which raise a substantial new question of patentability (for a reexamination filed under that standard) or a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail (for a reexamination filed under that standard) as to one or more patent claims for which reexamination has not been ordered (while reexamination has been ordered for other claims in the patent), and these documents in turn raise a compelling rejection of such claims, then such claims may be added, within the sole discretion of the Office, during the examination phase of the proceeding.
Restriction requirements cannot be made in a reexamination proceeding since no statutory basis exists for restriction in a reexamination proceeding. Note also that the addition of claims to a "separate and distinct" invention to the patent would be considered as being an enlargement of the scope of the patent claims and therefore are prohibited during reexamination. See Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP § 1412.03.
There are matters ancillary to reexamination which are necessary and incident to patentability which will be considered. Amendments may be made to the specification to correct, for example, an inadvertent failure to claim foreign priority or the continuing status of the patent relative to a parent application if such correction is necessary to overcome a reference applied against a claim of the patent.
See MPEP § 2258.02 for guidance on claiming foreign priority or domestic benefit in a reexamination proceeding.
Correction of inventorship may also be made during reexamination. See 37 CFR 1.324 and MPEP § 1481 for petition for correction of inventorship in a patent. If a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.324 is granted, a Certificate of Correction indicating the change of inventorship will not be issued, because the reexamination certificate that will ultimately issue will contain the appropriate change-of-inventorship information (i.e., the Certificate of Correction is in effect merged with the reexamination certificate).
If questions other than those indicated above (for example, questions of patentability based on public use or on sale, conduct issues, abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c), etc.) are raised by the third party requester or the patent owner during a reexamination proceeding, the existence of such questions may be noted by the examiner in the next Office action. Such questions could arise in a reexamination requester’s 37 CFR 1.915 request or in 37 CFR 1.947 comments by the third party requester. For written comments by the requester during a reexamination proceeding which are not limited to addressing issues raised by the action of the Office or the patent owner’s response, see MPEP § 2666.05.
If questions of patentability based on public use or on sale, conduct issues, abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 102(c), etc. are independently discovered by the examiner during a reexamination proceeding but were not raised by the third party requester or the patent owner, the existence of such questions will not be noted by the examiner in an Office action, because 37 CFR 1.906(c) is only directed to such questions "raised by the patent owner or the third party requester."
Where a request for reexamination is filed on a patent after it has been reissued, reexamination will be denied because the patent on which the request for reexamination is based has been surrendered. Should reexamination of the reissued patent be desired, a new request for reexamination including, and based on, the specification and claims of the reissue patent must be filed.
Any amendment made by the patent owner in the prosecution of the reexamination proceeding, should treat the changes made by the granted reissue patent as the text of the patent, and all bracketing and underlining made with respect to the patent as changed by the reissue.
Where the reissue patent issues after the filing of a request for reexamination, see MPEP § 2686.03.

References: § 2258
 § 1412
 § 2658
 § 2642
 § 2686
 § 2686
 § 2642
 § 2660
 § 1412
 § 2258
 § 1481
 § 2666
 § 2686