37 C.F.R. § 1.540
Consideration of responses in ex parte reexamination
The failure to timely file or serve the documents set forth in § 1.530 or in § 1.535 may result in their being refused consideration. No submissions other than the statement pursuant to § 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte reexamination requester pursuant to § 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1988–1989 · leading case: Ethicon, Inc. v. Donald J. Quigg, Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks & the United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Ethicon, Inc. v. Donald J. Quigg, Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks & the United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “On October 2, the PTO denied USSC’s stay petition because it was untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 1.540 . But it nevertheless stayed the reexamination pending the decision of the Connecticut court, relying on MPEP § 2286 which provides in pertinent part: If reexamination is ordered…”
Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “6) [hereinafter “MPEP”]; 3 (3) the PTO considered Alfa’s “Reply to Requester’s Statement” before beginning reexamination, contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 1.540 (1988); (4) Alfa’s “Reply” directed the PTO to amend claim 1, which the PTO did, but the “Reply” was untimely under 37 C.”
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.