C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.197

Termination of proceedings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Proceedings on an application are considered terminated by the dismissal of an appeal or the failure to timely file an appeal to the court or a civil action except:

(1) Where claims stand allowed in an application; or

(2) Where the nature of the decision requires further action by the examiner.

(b) The date of termination of proceedings on an application is the date on which the appeal is dismissed or the date on which the time for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or review by civil action (§ 90.3 of this chapter) expires in the absence of further appeal or review. If an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a civil action has been filed, proceedings on an application are considered terminated when the appeal or civil action is terminated. A civil action is terminated when the time to appeal the judgment expires. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, whether from a decision of the Board or a judgment in a civil action, is terminated when the mandate is issued by the Court.

[78 FR 75252, Dec. 11, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “7 refers to "rehearings" whereas 37 C.F.R. 1.197 (PTO Rule 197) 5 refers to "reconsideration" is of no significance.”
In re Gilbert P. Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b) (appellant may file one request for rehearing “unless the original decision is so modified by the decision on rehearing as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences so states”).”
Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., 931 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “, 37 C.F.R. § 1.197 ("An appeal to the U.S.”
In re Michael Ben Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “After the Board entered its first decision, the applicant, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b), 2 filed with the Board a request for reconsideration of the 30 September decision.”
Struthers Pat. Corp. v. Nestle Co., 558 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981). “37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (c). 3. The Muller III Application (the ’522 Patent) The Muller III application (Serial No.”
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dann, 421 F. Supp. 995 (D.D.C. 1976). “Rule 197(b) of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b) (1975). Accordingly, it is this 27th day of October, 1976.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.