37 C.F.R. § 1.515

Determination of the request for ex parte reexamination

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

(a) Within three months following the filing date of a request for an ex parte reexamination, an examiner will consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior art cited therein, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. A statement and any accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) will not be considered by the examiner when making a determination on the request. The examiner's determination will be based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the official file of the patent, and will be given or mailed to the patent owner at the address provided for in § 1.33(c) and to the person requesting reexamination.

(b) Where no substantial new question of patentability has been found, a refund of a portion of the fee for requesting ex parte reexamination will be made to the requester in accordance with § 1.26(c).

(c) The requester may seek review by a petition to the Director under § 1.181 within one month of the mailing date of the examiner's determination refusing ex parte reexamination. Any such petition must comply with § 1.181(b). If no petition is timely filed or if the decision on petition affirms that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the determination shall be final and nonappealable.

[65 FR 76775, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 77 FR 46626, Aug. 6, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: In Re Berwyn E. Etter

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Berwyn E. Etter (1985) cafc · cites it 3× “, determining whether there should be reexamination, PTO regulation 37 C.F.R. § 1.515 provides: § 1.515 Determination of the request for reexamination.”

Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH (2002) dcd “If the PTO grants reexamination, the PTO will “expidite[ ] to the extent possible” the reexamination proceedings following receipt of the statement by the patent owner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.”

Patlex Corp., Inc. v. Mossinghoff (1983) paed · cites it 2× “37 C.F.R. § 1.515 (b). A reexamination request is considered filed when the fee is paid.”

Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (1989) cafc “§ 303 (1982); 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.515 , 1.525 (1988), and granted Syntex’s request.”

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. v. Advanced Flexible Composites, Inc. (2006) mad “AFC argues that the PTO by law must determine whether to deny or grant the request within three months, that reexamination “will likely resolve significant issues related to the patentability of the ’122 patent,” and that a delay of three months is therefore reasonable under the…”

Kenneth R. Cornwall v. U.S. Construction Manufacturing, Inc., Kenneth R. Cornwall v. U.S. Construction Manufacturing, In (1986) cafc “Petition Under 37 C.F.R. 1.515(c) and 37 C.F.R. 1.181 to Review the Denial of the Request for Reexamination and Attachments Thereto.”

Leeds v. Quigg (1990) dcd “183 ; (3) decisions upholding the denial of reexamination requests under 37 C.F.R. § 1.515 (c); (4) decisions denying extensions of time in a reexamination under 37 C.”

In Re VIVINT, INC. (2021) cafc “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.515 . And the Office of Pa- tent Legal Administration (OPLA), a subset of the Patent Office, resolved Vivint’s petitions that raised § 325(d).”

Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (2020) cod “§ 303 (a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.515 (b)(1). If such a question is raised, the PTO will order reexamination of the patent.”

— 37 C.F.R. § 1.515(a) — 1 case

In Re Berwyn E. Etter (1985) cafc “, determining whether there should be reexamination, PTO regulation 37 C.F.R. § 1.515 provides: § 1.515 Determination of the request for reexamination.”

— 37 C.F.R. § 1.515(c) — 1 case

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.