[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44219-44223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12600]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2006-0007]
RIN 0651-AC02
Clarification of Filing Date Requirements for Ex Parte and Inter
Partes Reexamination Proceedings
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is, in
this final rule making, revising the rules of practice relating to the
filing date requirements for ex parte and inter partes reexamination
proceedings for consistency with the provisions of the patent statute
governing ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, and to
permit the Office to have the full statutory three months to address a
request for reexamination that is complete. The Office is specifically
revising the rules to require that a request for ex parte reexamination
or for inter partes reexamination must meet all the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements before a filing date is accorded
to the request for ex parte reexamination or for inter partes
reexamination.
DATES: Effective Date: August 4, 2006.
Applicability Date: The changes in this final rule apply to any
request for reexamination (ex parte or inter partes) filed on or after
March 27, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By telephone--Kenneth M. Schor, at
(571) 272-7710; by mail addressed to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Mail Stop Comments--Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Kenneth M. Schor;
by facsimile transmission to (571) 273-7710 marked to the attention of
Kenneth M. Schor; or by electronic mail message over the Internet
addressed to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Patent and Trademark
Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice in title 37 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to require that a request for ex
parte reexamination or for inter partes reexamination must meet all the
applicable statutory requirements in 35 U.S.C. 302 or 311
(respectively) and the regulatory requirements in Sec. 1.510 or Sec.
1.915 (respectively) before a filing date is accorded to the request
for ex parte reexamination or for inter partes reexamination. Thus, the
Office is amending the rules to clearly require compliance with all the
requirements of filing an ex parte reexamination request set forth in
Sec. 1.510 before a filing date will be assigned to an ex parte
reexamination request, and to clearly require compliance with all the
requirements of filing an inter partes reexamination request set forth
in Sec. 1.915 before a filing date will be assigned to an inter partes
reexamination request. The Office published an interim rule revising
the rules of practice to implement this revision of the rules. See
Clarification of Filing Date Requirements for Ex Parte and Inter Partes
Reexamination Proceedings, 71 FR 9260 (February 23, 2006), 1304 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 95 (March 21, 2006) (interim rule). This notice adopts
the interim revision as a final revision of the rules of practice,
while making stylistic and non-substantive changes to the relevant
rules, which changes are discussed below.
Section 1.510 sets forth the requirements for the content of a
request for ex parte reexamination. Section 1.915 sets forth the
requirements for the content of a request for inter partes
reexamination. Former Sec. 1.510(d) stated that the filing date of a
request for ex parte reexamination is ``(1) The date on which the
request including the entire fee for requesting reexamination is
received in the Patent and Trademark Office; or (2) The date on which
the last portion of the fee for requesting reexamination is received.''
In like manner, former Sec. 1.919(a) stated that ``[t]he filing date
of a request for inter partes reexamination is the date on
[[Page 44220]]
which the request satisfies the fee requirement of Sec. 1.915(a).''
Given the former rule language, it may have appeared that compliance
with the provisions of Sec. 1.510(b) or Sec. 1.915(b) was not
required for obtaining a filing date in reexamination. However, 35
U.S.C. 302 (for ex parte reexamination) explicitly requires that
``[t]he request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying
cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.''
Likewise, 35 U.S.C. 311(b) (for inter partes reexamination) explicitly
requires that the request must ``include the identity of the real party
in interest'' and ``set forth the pertinency and manner of applying
cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.''
Reexamination requesters did not always comply with these statutory
requirements when submitting requests for reexamination. Furthermore,
the information missing due to a lack of compliance with Sec. 1.510(b)
or with Sec. 1.915(b) was often relevant to the decision on whether to
grant the request for reexamination. This presented a difficulty for
the Office in view of the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 303 (for
ex parte reexamination) and 35 U.S.C. 312 (for inter partes
reexamination) that the decision on the request must be issued within
three months of the filing date of the request for reexamination,
because the process of notifying the requester of the non-compliance
and obtaining the missing information may very well extend beyond the
three-month statutory deadline, or the information may be provided so
close to the deadline that there is not sufficient time to properly
evaluate it.
To address this problem, Sec. Sec. 1.510(c) and (d) were revised
via interim rule to clearly require compliance with all the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 1.510(a) and (b) in order to obtain an ex
parte reexamination filing date (and a decision on the request for
reexamination). Likewise, Sec. 1.919(a) was revised to clearly require
compliance with all the requirements of Sec. 1.915 in order to obtain
an inter partes reexamination filing date. This notice adopts the
substance of the interim rule as final. It is to be noted that these
changes should not have a significant impact on reexamination
requesters, because the filing date in a reexamination proceeding does
not have the same legal significance as the filing date in other Office
patent proceedings (cf. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)). The rules now simply clearly
recite that the statutory and regulatory requirements for a request for
reexamination must be fulfilled before a filing date will be assigned.
Unless otherwise stated, the present final rule simply adopts, or
essentially adopts, the regulatory language of the interim rule.
Sections 1.510(c) and 1.915(d) have been revised for parallelism
purposes from the text that appears in the interim rule. Anything that
is more than sentence structure, grammar, or style is identified in the
discussion below.
Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 1.11: Section 1.11(c) is revised to provide that any
request for reexamination ``for which all the requirements of Sec.
1.510 or Sec. 1.915 have been satisfied'' will be announced in the
Official Gazette. Previously, Sec. 1.11(c) provided that all requests
for reexamination ``for which the fee under Sec. 1.20(c) has been
paid'' would be announced in the Official Gazette. This change was
inadvertently omitted in the interim rule, but is not one of substance.
As per the interim rule and this final rule, where all the requirements
of Sec. 1.510 or Sec. 1.915 have not been satisfied, a request filing
date is not assigned. Obviously, the Office cannot announce the ``date
of the request * * * and the examining group to which the reexamination
is assigned,'' since these do not exist until the requirements of Sec.
1.510 or Sec. 1.915 have been satisfied.
Section 1.510: Section 1.510(c) is revised to provide that if a
request for ex parte reexamination does not: (1) Include the fee for
requesting ex parte reexamination, and (2) comply with all the
requirements of Sec. 1.510(b); then the person identified as
requesting reexamination will be notified and will generally be given
an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time. If the
request is not completed within the time specified, the request will
not be granted a filing date and no decision on the request will be
made. The request may be placed in the patent file as a citation if it
complies with the requirements of Sec. 1.501. Deleted from former
Sec. 1.510(c) (as it existed prior to the interim rule) is the
sentence: ``If the fee for requesting reexamination has been paid but
the defect in the request is not corrected within the specified time,
the determination whether or not to institute reexamination will be
made on the request as it then exists.''
Section 1.510(c) states that the requester will ``generally'' be
given an opportunity to complete the request, because, in some
instances, it may not be practical, or even possible, to provide an
opportunity for completion of the request. For example, the request
might be submitted anonymously (although such is not proper), or
without an address, or with an inoperative address. In such instances,
the requester would be notified of the incomplete request by
publication in the Official Gazette, but an opportunity to complete the
request would not be provided.
Section 1.510(d) is revised to provide that the filing date of the
request for an ex parte reexamination request is the date on which the
request satisfies all the requirements of Sec. 1.510. Until that
point, the request for reexamination is not complete. In the interim
rule, the language employed was ``the date on which the request
satisfies all the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.'' The language now provided is ``the date on which the request
satisfies all the requirements of this section.'' This language is used
for consistency with Sec. 1.919 which states, as a result of the
interim rule, ``[t]he filing date of a request for inter partes
reexamination is the date on which the request satisfies all the
requirements for the request set forth in Sec. 1.915.''
Section 1.915: Section 1.915(d) is revised to provide that if a
request for inter partes reexamination does not (1) include the fee for
requesting inter partes reexamination, and (2) comply with all the
requirements of Sec. 1.915(b), then the person identified as
requesting reexamination will be notified and will generally be given
an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time. The
interim rule inadvertently did not include, in the text of Sec.
1.915(d), that the requester will be notified where the complete fee
for requesting inter partes reexamination required by paragraph (a) was
not provided, though it was included in the interim rule preamble. That
omission has been rectified.
If the request is not completed within the time specified, the
request will not be granted a filing date and no decision on the
request will be made. Section 1.915(d) stated, prior to the change made
via the interim rule, that the reexamination proceeding may be vacated
under this circumstance. Based on the revision to Sec. 1.919(a) set
forth below, however, the inter partes request will not be granted a
filing date under this circumstance in the first place; thus, there
will be no reexamination proceeding to vacate.
Section 1.915(d) is revised to provide that, where the request was
not given a filing date, the request will be placed in the patent file
as a citation, if it complies with the requirements of Sec. 1.501.
This was not present in the interim rule, and conforms Sec. 1.915(d)
with Sec. 1.510(c).
[[Page 44221]]
Section 1.915(d) states that the requester will ``generally'' be
given an opportunity to complete the request, because, in some
instances, it may not be practical, or even possible, to provide an
opportunity for completion of the request (see the discussion of Sec.
1.510(c)).
Section 1.919: Section 1.919(a) is revised to require that the
request for inter partes reexamination must satisfy all the
requirements for the request set forth in Sec. 1.915, prior to
assignment of a filing date. Until that point, the request for inter
partes reexamination is not complete.
Response to comments: The Office received one set of written
comments from a patent practitioner in response to the interim rule.
The comments, and the Office's response to the comments, now follow:
The commenter stated, in support of the change made to the rules,
that ``[t]he Interim Rule is well-merited for the reasons stated in on
pages 9260-61 of the notice. The Office deserves a full three months in
which to decide whether there is a substantial new question of
patentability, and no examiner should be rushed into a decision because
the requester failed to comply with the statute or rules.''
The commenter then pointed out one implementation concern, as
follows:
``The rule should be easy to apply, with one potential
exception--the statement of the pertinency and manner of applied
cited prior art for every claim that is requested. See 35 U.S.C.
302, 311(b)(2); 37 CFR 1.510(b)(1)-(2), 1.915(b)(3). A request may
initially appear (on intake) to contain this statement, but closer
review (by the examiner) may reveal that the statement is not
actually there. Under the Interim Rule, the filing date ``is the
date on which the request satisfies all the requirements for the
request set forth in [the rule]''. Thus, one might read the rule as
saying that if a filing date is assigned, the Office has decided
that the required statement is present, and an examiner may not
revisit the issue. * * * In these situations, the examiner should be
able to independently decide that the request fails to comply with
the statute and rules. I therefore suggest that the rule be
interpreted to allow the examiner to do this.''
This comment is adopted to the extent that the examiner is
permitted, by Office procedure, to independently assert to a deciding
official of the Office that the request fails to comply with the
statute and/or rules, even after a reexamination filing date is
assigned to a request. The deciding Official will then evaluate the
examiner's assertion, and will decide whether the filing date that was
assigned should be vacated. This point has been addressed in the
internal procedure established by the Office to implement the revision
of the rules made via this rule. Such procedure will be described below
in this final rule, and will be incorporated into the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure in its next revision.
The commenter further pointed out that the interim rule ``describes
the Interim Rule as mandating compliance with `the statutory
requirements' before the Office will assign a filing date. But the
specific language of the interim rule [preamble] mandates compliance
with rules--37 CFR 1.510(b) and 1.915(b)--and does not mention the
statute. Those rules include non-statutory requirements, e.g., an inter
partes requester's certificate of service on the patent owner, and an
inter partes requester's certificate of non-estoppel. See 37 CFR
1.915(b)(6)-(7). While these rules are sensible and easy to meet, it
would be more accurate to describe the Interim Rule as mandating
compliance with `statutory and regulatory requirements' before the
Office will assign a filing date.''
This comment is adopted, and the language is revised as set out in
the preamble of this final rule.
Office Procedure to Implement the Revision of the Rules Made via
this Final Rule: A request for reexamination is no longer assigned a
filing date, upon receipt of the request in the Central Reexamination
Unit (CRU). Rather, the CRU Legal Instrument Examiners (LIE) and
Paralegals will check each request for compliance with the
reexamination filing date requirements, prior to the assigning of a
filing date. In order to obtain a reexamination filing date, the
request papers must include all of the following:
(1) The complete reexamination fee. For ex parte reexamination,
this is currently set at $2,520.00 in Sec. 1.20(c)(1). For inter
partes reexamination, this is currently set at $8,800.00 in Sec.
1.20(c)(2).
(2) A statement pointing out each substantial new question of
patentability based on the cited patents and publications (i.e., the
cited prior art or double patenting art).
(3) An identification of every claim for which reexamination is
requested.
(4) A detailed explanation of how all of the cited documents are
applied to the claims for which reexamination is requested. For each
identified substantial new question of patentability (SNQ), the request
must explain how all of the cited documents identified for that SNQ are
applied to meet/teach the claim limitations to thus establish the
identified SNQ.
(5) A legible copy of every patent or printed publication relied
upon or referred to in the request. (To conform to current practice,
this provision is not being enforced to require copies of U.S. patents
and U.S. patent publications; the provision is deemed waived to that
extent.) It is to be noted that the required ``copy of every patent or
printed publication'' is construed by the Office to be a legible copy,
since a non-legible copy cannot be used. Any copy of a patent or
printed publication received by the Office that is illegible will not
be accepted, and will be deemed to have not been received by the
Office.
(6) Some translation (at least of the relevant portion(s)) of any
non-English language patent or printed publication.
(7) A legible copy of the entire patent to be reexamined. The copy
must include the front face, drawings, and specification/claims (in
double column format) of the printed patent, and each page must be
plainly written on only one side of a sheet of paper.
(8) A legible copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
reexamination certificate issued for the patent, each page plainly
written on only one side of a sheet of paper.
(9) If the request is not filed by the patent owner--A certificate
of service on the patent owner at the address as provided for in Sec.
1.33(c). The name and address of the party served must be given in the
certificate of service. If service was not possible, a duplicate copy
of the request papers must be supplied to the Office together with a
factual explanation of what efforts were made to effect service, and
why they were not successful.
(10) If the request is filed by an attorney/agent and identifies
another party on whose behalf the request is being filed, then a power
of attorney must be attached, or the attorney/agent must be acting in a
representative capacity pursuant to Sec. 1.34.
For inter partes reexamination, the request papers must also
include--
(11) A certification by the requester that the estoppel provisions
of Sec. 1.907 do not prohibit the inter partes reexamination being
requested.
(12) A statement identifying the real party in interest for whom
(on whose behalf) the request is being filed.
If it is determined that the request fails to meet one or more of
the filing date requirements, the person identified as requesting
reexamination will be so notified and will be given an opportunity to
complete the requirements of the request within a specified time
(generally thirty days). The new Office form used to provide the
notification is a ``Notice of Failure to Comply with * * *
Reexamination Request Filing Requirements.''
[[Page 44222]]
If after receiving a ``Notice of Failure to Comply with * * *
Reexamination Request Filing Requirements,'' the requester does not
remedy the defects in the request papers that are pointed out, then the
request papers will not be given a filing date, and a control number
will not be assigned. The simplest case of a failure to remedy the
defect(s) in the Notice is where the requester does not timely respond
to the Notice. The other case is where requester does timely respond,
but the response does not cure the defect(s) identified to requester
and/or the response introduces a new filing date defect or deficiency.
If the requester timely responds to the Notice, then the CRU LIE and
Paralegal will check the request, as supplemented by the response, for
correction of all non-compliant items identified in the Notice. If any
identified non-compliant item has not been corrected, then a filing
date (and a control number) will not be assigned to the request papers.
It is to be noted that a single failure to comply with the ``Notice of
Failure to Comply with * * * Reexamination Request Filing
Requirements'' will ordinarily result in the reexamination request not
being granted a filing date. Absent extraordinary circumstances (or
some minor non-compliant item that can be rectified by a phone call
which can be made at the Office's sole discretion), requester will be
given only one opportunity to correct the non-compliance, i.e., only
one opportunity for compliance with the Notice. Similarly, if the
response introduces a new filing date defect or deficiency into the
request papers, then the reexamination request will not be granted a
filing date absent extraordinary circumstances. If the request papers
are not timely made filing-date-compliant in response to the Office's
Notice of Failure to Comply with * * * Reexamination Request Filing
Requirements, then the LIE will prepare a ``Notice of Disposition of *
* * Reexamination Request.'' This notice will point out the disposition
of the request papers (whether they are treated as a Sec. 1.501
submission or discarded) and why.
After a filing date is assigned to the reexamination control
number, the patent examiner reviews the request to decide whether to
order the granting or denial of reexamination. If, in the process of
reviewing the request, the examiner notes a non-compliant item not
earlier recognized, then the examiner will then inform an appropriate
deciding official of the Office. Upon confirmation of the existence of
any such non-compliant item(s), a decision vacating the assigned
reexamination filing date will be issued. In the decision, the
requester will be notified of the non-compliant item(s) and given time
to correct the non-compliance. Only one opportunity will be given to
comply with the notice to the requester included in the decision
vacating the filing date, unless: (1) Extraordinary circumstances
exist, or (2) there are only a few minor non-compliant items that can
be rectified by a phone call, in which case such a phone call may be
made; however, that is at the Office's sole discretion.
The requester must completely respond to the notice provided in the
Office's decision vacating the filing date by rectifying all identified
defects in the request papers without adding any new defect. If the
third party requester does not timely and completely respond to the
Office's decision vacating the filing date, the Office will issue a
decision pointing out the disposition of the request papers (whether
treated as a Sec. 1.501 submission or discarded) and why. If the third
party requester does timely and completely respond to the Office's
decision vacating the filing date, a new filing date will be assigned
to the proceeding, as of the date the requester's response was
received.
Rule Making Considerations
Administrative Procedure Act
The changes in this final rule merely revise the rules of practice
(Sec. Sec. 1.510 and 1.915) to require that a request for ex parte
reexamination or for inter partes reexamination meets the requirements
in 35 U.S.C. 302 and 311 and regulations for a request for ex parte
reexamination or for inter partes reexamination, before a filing date
is accorded to the request for ex parte reexamination or for inter
partes reexamination. Therefore, these rule changes involve
interpretive rules, or rules of agency practice and procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and prior notice and an opportunity for public
comment were not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (or any other
law). See Bachow Communications Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (DC Cir.
2001) (rules governing an application process are ``rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice'' and are exempt from the
Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirement); see
also Merck & Co., Inc. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543, 1549-50, 38 USPQ2d
1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the rules of practice promulgated under
the authority of former 35 U.S.C. 6(a) (now in 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)) are
not substantive rules (to which the notice and comment requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act apply), and Fressola v. Manbeck, 36
USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (D.D.C. 1995) (``it is extremely doubtful whether any
of the rules formulated to govern patent and trade-mark practice are
other than `interpretive rules, general statements of policy, * * *
procedure, or practice.''') (quoting Casper W. Ooms, The United States
Patent Office and the Administrative Procedure Act, 38 Trademark Rep.
149, 153 (1948)). Accordingly, prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment were not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (or any
other law).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
As discussed previously, the changes in this final rule involve
rules of agency practice and procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and
prior notice and an opportunity for public comment were not required
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (or any other law). As prior notice and
an opportunity for public comment were not required pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) for the changes in this final rule, a
regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is not required for the changes in this final rule.
See 5 U.S.C. 603.
Executive Order 13132
This rule making does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).
Executive Order 12866
This rule making has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule involves information collection requirements which
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
collection of information involved in this final rule has been reviewed
and previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-0033. The
United States Patent and Trademark Office is not resubmitting any
information collection to OMB for its review and approval because the
changes in this final rule do not affect the information collection
requirements associated with the information collection under OMB
control number 0651-0033. The principal impacts of the changes in this
final rule are to clarify the requirement for compliance with all the
[[Page 44223]]
requirements of filing a reexamination before a filing date will be
assigned to a reexamination. Interested persons are requested to send
comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions
for reducing this burden to: (1) The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office; and
(2) Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-
1450.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and Biologics.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule amending 37
CFR part 1 which was published at 71 FR 9260-62 on February 23, 2006,
is adopted as final with the following changes:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.11 Files open to the public.
* * * * *
(c) All requests for reexamination for which all the requirements
of Sec. 1.510 or Sec. 1.915 have been satisfied will be announced in
the Official Gazette. Any reexaminations at the initiative of the
Director pursuant to Sec. 1.520 will also be announced in the Official
Gazette. The announcement shall include at least the date of the
request, if any, the reexamination request control number or the
Director initiated order control number, patent number, title, class
and subclass, name of the inventor, name of the patent owner of record,
and the examining group to which the reexamination is assigned.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.510 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1.510 Request for ex parte reexamination.
* * * * *
(c) If the request does not include the fee for requesting ex parte
reexamination required by paragraph (a) of this section and meet all
the requirements by paragraph (b) of this section, then the person
identified as requesting reexamination will be so notified and will
generally be given an opportunity to complete the request within a
specified time. Failure to comply with the notice will result in the ex
parte reexamination request not being granted a filing date, and will
result in placement of the request in the patent file as a citation if
it complies with the requirements of Sec. 1.501.
(d) The filing date of the request for ex parte reexamination is
the date on which the request satisfies all the requirements of this
section.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.915 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.915 Content of request for inter partes reexamination.
* * * * *
(d) If the inter partes request does not include the fee for
requesting inter partes reexamination required by paragraph (a) of this
section and meet all the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section,
then the person identified as requesting inter partes reexamination
will be so notified and will generally be given an opportunity to
complete the request within a specified time. Failure to comply with
the notice will result in the inter partes reexamination request not
being granted a filing date, and will result in placement of the
request in the patent file as a citation if it complies with the
requirements of Sec. 1.501.
Dated: July 31, 2006.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E6-12600 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P