<Corrections welcomed but if Rimell was assigned this new request it probably would have been denied because although the newly cited prior art was "not of record" Rimell was aware of it's existance. The 4 days came in handy for the enemy.>

A rejection of the request at that point would probably require that Rimell essentially argue each of the SNQs in detail. Regardless of whether he thought the request was unjustified, the easy way out is let the patent owner argue. So I'm not so sure Rimmel would want to spend his time on it.

However, the delay, allowing the reexam cert to issue, now makes rejection of an SNQs much easier. Rimell specifcally states that certain features are not found in any of the prior art of record. Thus, with those statements, it is no longer necessary to provide arguments by anyone. Unless the USPTO deems those statements worthless, any new SNQ would have to involve something not already addressed in the NIRC. IMHO.

I'm not sure what the underlined portion means? There is 10 days between the grant of the reexam and the issuance of the reexam cert. One might ask why the present examiner would not wait for the reexam cert before making a decision on the new reexam request. Here's my thinking on that point. The examiner has to make a decision within 3 months. That would be by Nov 24th. Thus, should he assume that the reexam cert will be issued in time and prepare a rejection on that hope, or does he prepare a grant on the basis of what is at hand? At some point he has to commit to a grant if the reexam cert is not already issued, allowing himslef sufficient time to do the paperwork involved. And once that route is taken and the paperwork is done, he can't hold it and risk issuance of a reexam cert undoing the grant and requiring him to go the other route at the last minute. So publish the grant as soon as it is ready.

That's my take on it and why we are where we are at the moment.

GLTA, Opty