314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002), 02-1046, In re Bass

Docket Nº:02-1046.
Citation:314 F.3d 575, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156
Party Name:In re Robert T. BASS.
Case Date:December 17, 2002
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 575

314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156

In re Robert T. BASS.

No. 02-1046.

Reexamination Nos. 90/004, 127, 90/004, 403.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2002

Page 576

David K. Friedland, Lott & Friedland, P.A., of Coral Gables, Florida, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Ury Fischer.

Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and RADER, Circuit Judges.

MAYER, Chief Judge.

Robert T. Bass appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Ex parte Bass, 1999 WL 33205690, No. 98-2721 (Feb. 10, 1999), affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-4 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2000). We affirm.


Bass is the owner of United States Patent No. 4,473,026 ("the '026 patent") directed to a fishing boat. In January of 1996, a third party requested a reexamination (Control No. 90/004,127), citing United States Design Patent No. 219,891 to William Cargile ("Cargile"), several Cargile brochures, and a scaled engineering drawing in Lucander, "Fishing Vessel Designed for Engine Aft," National Fisherman, Vol. 57, No. 2 (June 1976), ("Lucander"). The examiner initially found claims 1-8 of the '026 patent allowable, and in October of 1996, issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate ("NIRC"). Shortly thereafter, but before the reexamination certificate issued, the same third party requested a second reexamination (Control No. 90/004,403) submitting the same references, six "Closet publications," and a declaration by Robert Schofield, a boat designer, that contained an illustration of a view of a boat based entirely on the drawing in the Lucander publication. The examiner granted the second request for reexamination, stating that Lucander raised a substantial new question as to patentability, and merged the two reexamination proceedings. The examiner then rejected claims 1-4 based upon Cargile and Lucander. The board affirmed the rejection finding that Lucander alone taught all of the limitations of claims 1-4.


We review the board's conclusions...

To continue reading