37 C.F.R. § 1.198
Reopening after a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
When a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on appeal has become final for judicial review, prosecution of the proceeding before the primary examiner will not be reopened or reconsidered by the primary examiner except under the provisions of § 1.114 or § 41.50 of this title without the written authority of the Director, and then only for the consideration of matters not already adjudicated, sufficient cause being shown.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001).
Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001). “1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.198 (2000). 46 . In an attempt to escalate the materiality of the Goldwasser study vis-a-vis Claim 1 of the '422 patent, TKT conflates biological activity with therapeutic effect.”
In Re Robert K. Grasselli & Harley F. Hardman, & Rohm & Haas Co., Intervenor, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Relying on 37 C.F.R. § 1.198 , 5 the examiner refused to consider appellants’ declarations and affidavits, after having specifically been entered by petition to the Commissioner, on the ground that the experiments therein related only to rejections affirmed by the board in its…”
In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812 (C.C.P.A. 1977). “The examiner then, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.198, reopened prosecution and applied the French patent against all claims under 35 U.”
In re Conte, 36 F. App'x 446 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “He also argues that the PTO erred in rejecting the claims over references previously of record, citing this court’s decision in In re Portola Packaging, 110 F.3d 786 , 42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed.”
In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152 (C.C.P.A. 1975). “In Heyl the terminal disclaimer had been filed with a petition for reconsideration of the board’s decision and was refused entry on the ground that to do so would constitute reopening prosecution contrary to PTO Rule 198 (37 CFR 1.198). The interest in orderly PTO procedure we…”
Hyatt v. Vidal (D.D.C. 2024). “17990 (showing the examiner obtained group director approval); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.198 ; MPEP § 1002.02(c). In other words, the PTO reopened prosecution not because it intended to delay the examination or issuance of Mr.”
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.