Opinion ID: 2811842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mohsenzadeh’s patent applications

Text: Mohsenzadeh filed Application No. 09/899,905 (“ ’905 application”) on July 6, 2001. The ’905 application included 58 claims. Though the 14-month notification period of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A) ended on September 6, 2002, the PTO did not notify Mohsenzadeh that the ’905 application was subject to a restriction requirement until September 21, 2006. The restriction requirement included four groupings of claims, each corresponding to a single invention. In response to the restriction requirement, Mohsenzadeh elected to prosecute claims 1–21 and 51–58. At that point, the non-elected claims were cancelled via examiner amendment. The claims Mohsenzadeh elected to prosecute issued on June 22, 2010 as U.S. Patent No. 7,742,984 (“ ’984 patent”). When the patent issued, the PTO granted a patent term adjustment of 2,104 days for the ’984 patent. That figure includes 1,476 days of A Delay attributable to the delay occurring between September 6, 2002 and September 21, 2006, i.e., the time between when notice was due and when the PTO actually provided notice of the restriction requirement. Mohsenzadeh filed two divisional applications from the ’905 application on January 8, 2010. Each divisional application corresponded to a group of claims identified as MOHSENZADEH v. LEE 5 a separate invention in the original restriction requirement. Both applications issued as patents. The first, U.S. Patent No. 8,352,362 (“ ’362 patent”), issued on January 8, 2013, and the second, U.S. Patent No. 8,401,963 (“ ’963 patent”), issued on March 19, 2013. Both patents claim priority to the ’984 patent. The PTO granted 0 days of patent term adjustment for both the ’362 and ’963 patents.