should be posted on Pair this week, I hope tommorrow. This may give us more insight as to why a Non-Final Rexam was determined.
At "NO" time, have I alluded to our attorneys indirectly controlling the rexam. I gave you my opinion. If people would look up the rules from the USPTO and read the letter from JP on the 148 Non- Final rexam letter, it states, our attorneys are required to turn over any and all prior art from the past and in the future.
Here is my post from last week:
Please click on this link and it will take you to PAIR. After you get in the system , search for 90/008/306. Go to file wrapper and click on it. At the top you will see the Rexam Litigation Review. Open this up and go to page 4. The first C you come to will give the name of an inventor and the number. Trace that back and it is a child of the Kajigiaya.
This means both examiners are using the same family. If you go to 90/008,227 (148) please read the non-final action sent. Go to file wrapper and read the entire letter. To sum it up, in my opinion, he has basically stated , you sent this to me in your file and I am going to take a look at it. Also, in my opinion, if the company had not given this info to him, down the road it could come back and bite us.
Emtnester, if you are reading the board, I am sure you can explain it better. Thank you.
All IMO
GLTA
Have a great day,
greeneyes
All IMO
GLTA
Have a great day,
greeneyes