% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • luiz_1999_luiz luiz_1999_luiz Jul 31, 2009 6:57 PM Flag

    Wow Mecury in trouble

    27. Very little information has been added in the Corrected Petition that might address the Patent Office's rejections. Mercury relies on the same prior art in the Corrected Petition as it did in the original Petition. Pages 1-4 of both the original Petition and corrected Petition are virtually the same. Less than two pages of new information was added. Compare Exhibit 7, p.5 to Exhibit 9, pp. 5-7.

    28. The original petitions were rejected in part due to their failure to "clearly identify what is the new, non-cumulative technological teaching for each reference." Instead of meeting this requirement, the Corrected Petitions actually admit that one of the two primary references -- the 953 Tension CLamp Patent -- discloses only the same subject matter as a patent that was before the Examiner during the original prosecution -- U.S. Patent No. 5,437,899('''899 patent") to Quigley. The Corrected Petitions state" U.S. Pat. No. 5,437,899, just as '953 [Tension Clamp Patent], teaches a composite core." (Corrected Petition, p.6,para.2.) SINCE ON OF MERCURY'S TWO MAIN REFERENCES ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT CONTAIN "A NEW, NON-CUMULATIVE TEACHING," IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE PATENT OFFICE MAY AGAIN REJECT MERCURY'S PETITIONS FOR REEXAMINATION.