Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/1213.html
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 06:08:52
Document Index: 39812759

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1212', '§1213', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 41', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1214']

MPEP 1213: Decision by Board, Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
MPEP 1213
Previous: §1212 | Next: §1213.01
1213 Decision by Board [R-11.2013]
37 C.F.R. 41.50 Decisions and other actions by the Board.
(i) 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 affidavits (§§ 1.130, 1.131 or 1.132 of this title) or other Evidence. Any amendment or submission of affidavits or other Evidence must be relevant to the issues set forth in the remand or raised in the substitute examiner's answer. A request that complies with this paragraph (a) will be entered and the application or the patent under ex parte reexamination will be reconsidered by the examiner under the provisions of § 1.112 of this title. Any request that prosecution be reopened under this paragraph will be treated as a request to withdraw the appeal.
(c) Review of undesignated new ground of rejection. Any request to seek review of a panel's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in its decision must be raised by filing a request for rehearing as set forth in § 41.52. Failure of appellant to timely file such a request for rehearing will constitute a waiver of any arguments that a decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection.
(f) Extensions of time. Extensions of time under § 1.136(a) of this title for patent applications are not applicable to the time periods set forth in this section. See § 1.136(b) of this title for extensions of time to reply for patent applications and § 1.550(c) of this title for extensions of time to reply for ex parte reexamination proceedings.
After consideration of the Record including appellant’s briefs and the examiner’s answers, the Board writes its decision, affirming the examiner in whole or in part, or reversing the examiner’s decision, sometimes also setting forth a new ground of rejection.
37 CFR 41.50(e) provides that a decision of the Board which includes a remand will not be considered final for judicial review. The Board, following conclusion of the proceedings before the examiner, will either adopt its earlier decision as final for judicial review or will render a new decision based on all appealed claims, as it considers appropriate. In either case, final action by the Board will give rise to the alternatives available to an appellant following a decision by the Board.
On occasion, the Board has refused to consider an appeal until after the conclusion of a pending civil action or appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving issues identical with and/or similar to those presented in the later appeal. Such suspension of action, postponing consideration of the appeal until the Board has the benefit of a court decision which may be determinative of the issues involved, has been recognized as sound practice. An appellant is not entitled, after obtaining a final decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on an issue in a case, to utilize the prolonged pendency of a court proceeding as a means for avoiding res judicata while relitigating the same or substantially the same issue in another application.
An appellant may petition that the decision be withheld to permit the refiling of the application at any time prior to the mailing of the decision. Up to 30 days may be granted, although the time is usually limited as much as possible. The Board will be more prone to entertain the appellant’s petition where the petition is filed early, obviating the necessity for an oral hearing or even for the setting of the oral hearing date. If the case has already been set for oral hearing, the petition should include a request to vacate the hearing date, not to postpone it.
In a situation where a withdrawal of the appeal is filed on the same day that the decision is mailed, a petition to vacate the decision will be denied.
See MPEP § 1214.01 concerning the procedure following a new ground of rejection by the Board under 37 CFR 41.50(b).
A remark by the Board that a certain feature does not appear in a claim is not to be taken as a statement that the claim may be allowed if the feature is supplied by amendment. Ex parte Norlund, 1913 C.D. 161, 192 O.G. 989 (Comm’r Pat. 1913). A remark by the Board shall not be construed by appellant to give appellant authority to amend the claim.