UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,453
`
`09/28/2010
`
`7,601,662
`
`04119.000100.36
`
`2755
`
`7590
`48226
`BASF CATALYSTS LLC
`I 00 CAMPUS DRIVE
`FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
`
`11/1612010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`DIAMOND, ALAN D
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3991
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`I Ill 6/2010
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Exhibit 2008.001
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NY 10104-3800
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`W\VW.USpto.gov
`
`Date:
`MAILED
`
`NOV 1 6 2010
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95001453
`PATENT NO.: 7601662
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER : 3999
`ART UNIT: 3991
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL-2070(Rcv.07-04)
`
`Exhibit 2008.002
`
`

`
`Transmittal of Communication to
`Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001,453
`Examiner
`
`ALAN DIAMOND
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7,601,662
`Art Unit
`
`3991
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (5/04)
`
`PaperNo.20101029
`
`I I
`
`Exhibit 2008.003
`
`

`
`INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`COMMUNICATION
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001,453
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7,601,662
`Art Unit
`
`ALAN DIAMOND
`
`3991
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`BELOW/ATIACHED YOU WILL FIND A COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`AND TRADEMARK OFFICE OFFICIAL(S) IN CHARGE OF THE PRESENT REEXAMINATION
`PROCEEDING.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this
`communication.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2072 (5/04)
`
`PaperNo.20101029
`
`Exhibit 2008.004
`
`

`
`ORDER GRANTING/DENY/NG
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001.453
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7,601,662
`Art Unit
`
`ALAN DIAMOND
`
`3991
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered. Identification of the claims, the
`references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.
`
`Attachment(s):
`
`~ PT0-892
`
`~ PTO/SB/08
`
`DOther: __
`
`1. ~The request for inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`~ An Office action is attached with this order.
`
`D An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`2. D The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
`This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c)
`will be made to requester.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this
`Order.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2063 (08/06)
`
`Paper No. 20101029
`
`Exhibit 2008.005
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 2
`
`Decision on Reexamination Request
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-38 of United States
`
`Patent Number 7,601,662 (hereinafter "the '662 patent") is raised by the present request
`
`for inter partes reexamination.
`
`Art and Evidence Cited in the Order
`
`Yuen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0115403.
`
`Ritscher et al, U.S. Patent 4,297,328, hereafter "Ritscher".
`
`Zones et al, U.S. Patent 6,709,644, hereafter "Zones".
`
`Ishihara et al, "Copper Ion-Exchanged SAP0-34 as a Thermostable Catalyst for
`Selective Reduction of NO with C3H6," Journal of Catalysis, vol. 169, pp. 93-102, (1997),
`hereafter "Ishihara".
`
`Patchett et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0039843, hereafter "Patchett
`'843".
`
`Patchett et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0031514, hereafter "Patchett
`'514".
`
`Tennison et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0098973, hereafter "Tennison".
`
`Nam et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0171476, hereafter "Nam".
`
`Dedecek et al, "Siting of the Cu+ ions in dehydrated ion exchanged synthetic and natural
`chabasites: a Cu+ photoluminescence study," Microporous and Mesoporous Materials,
`vol. 32, pp. 63-74, (1999), hereafter "Dedecek".
`
`Chung et al, "Effect of Si/Al ratio of Mordenite and ZSM-5 type Zeolite Catalysts on
`Hydrothermal Stability for NO Reduction by Hydrocarbons," Studies in Surface Science
`Catalysis, vol. 130, pp. 1511-1516, (2000), hereafter "Chung".
`
`Rule 1.132 Declaration of Gabriele Centi, Ph.D. (hereafter "Centi Declaration")
`submitted with the request for reexamination.
`
`Exhibit 2008.006
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 3
`
`Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ)
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claim 1 of the '662 patent is
`1.
`unpatentable over Yuen. Yuen incorporates by reference Ritscher1
`.
`
`It is agreed that consideration of Yuen, which incorporates by reference Ritscher,
`
`raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 1. Sections A and Bat
`
`pages 12-18 of the request for reexamination are hereby incorporated by reference for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in Yuen and Ritscher that were not present
`
`in the prosecution of the application which became the '662 patent. There is a
`
`substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings
`
`important in deciding whether or not claim 1 was patentable. Accordingly, Yuen, which
`
`incorporates by reference Ritscher, raises a substantial new question of patentability as
`
`to claim 1, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the '662
`
`patent.
`
`SNQs with respect to claims 1-38 using Zones in view of Ishihara. as evidenced by the
`
`Centi Declaration:
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 1-11 of the '662
`2.
`patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Ishihara, as evidenced by the Centi
`Declaration.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 12-32 of the '662
`3.
`patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Ishihara, as evidenced by the Centi
`Declaration, and further in view of Patchett '843.
`
`1 While the request proposes SNQs over claim 1 with respect to Yuen incorporating by reference Ritscher and Yuen
`in view of Ritscher (see pp. 12-18 of the request). they have been collectively treated as an SNQ over Yuen, which
`incorporated by reference Ritscher.
`
`Exhibit 2008.007
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page4
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 33, 34 and 36-38 of
`4.
`the '662 patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Ishihara, as evidenced by the
`Centi Declaration, and further in view of Patchett '514.
`·
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claim 35 of the '662 patent is
`5.
`unpatentable over Zones in view of Ishihara, as evidenced by the Centi Declaration, and
`further in view of Tennison.
`
`It is agreed that consideration of the above cited prior art as evidenced by the
`
`Centi Declaration in SNQs 2 to 5 raises a substantial new question of patentability as to
`
`claims 1-38. Section C at pages 18-37 of the request for reexamination are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference for their explanation of the teachings provided in SNQs 2 to 5
`
`that were not present in the prosecution of the application which became the '662
`
`patent. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider
`
`these teachings important in deciding whether or not claims 1-38 were patentable.
`
`Accordingly, the prior art as evidenced by the Centi Declaration in SNQs 2 to 5 raises.a
`
`substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-38 which question has not been
`
`decided in a previous examination of the '662 patent.
`
`SNQs with respect to claims 1-38 using Zones in view of Nam:
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 1-11 of the '662
`6.
`patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Nam.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 12-32 of the '662
`7.
`patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Nam, and further in view of Patchett '843.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 33, 34 and 36-38 of
`8.
`the '662 patent are unpatentable over Zones in view of Nam, and further in view of
`Patchett '514.
`
`Exhibit 2008.008
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 5
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claim 35 of the '662 patent is
`9.
`unpatentable over Zones in view of Nam, and further in view of Tennison.
`
`It is not agreed that consideration of the above cited prior art in SNQs 6 to 9
`
`raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-38. Each of these
`
`proposed SNQ relies at least upon Zones and Nam, and thus, a discussion with respect
`
`to Zones and Nam follows: Zones was applied in the Office action mailed January 13,
`
`2009 as a primary reference under 35 USC 103(a) during prosecution of the '662 patent
`
`to reject all pending claims. In particular, Zones was relied upon as teaching a zeolite
`
`having a CHA crystal structure. Upon withdrawing the rejection, the examiner stated
`
`the following as the reasons for allowance (see the reasons for allowance mailed July
`
`31, 2009):
`
`The prior art fails to teach or establish a link between the silica to alumina ratio
`and the copper to aluminum ratio in the final catalyst. Although it is known in the
`art to employ ratios that overlap these claimed limitations in ZSM-5 catalysts, it is
`also known in this art that CHA based catalysts are very different from MFI
`catalysts and there is no predictability associated with their use in SCR materials.
`Accordingly, there would have been no motivation or expectation of success with
`respect to the instantly claimed materials.
`
`Nam is of the same family as U.S. Patent 7,049,261 (the '261 patent), which is of
`
`record in the '662 patent. Both Nam and the '261 patent claim the benefit of U.S.
`
`provisional application 60/474,492. In fact, the specifications and figures of Nam and
`
`the '261 patent are essentially identical. As seen on pages 37-40 of the request, Nam
`
`has been cited for teaching the use of an amount of copper in a zeolite that would result
`
`in a copper to aluminum atomic ratio exceeding about 0.25 when used with the CHA
`
`zeolite of Zones. In particular, the request points to Nam's Cu to Al atomic ratio range
`
`of about 2.5 wt.% to about 3.5 wt.% at~ 0015 (see pp. 38-39 of the request). This
`/
`
`Exhibit 2008.009
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page6
`
`exact same teaching is present in the '261 patent in the paragraph bridging cols. 2 and
`
`3. However, the only zeolite material taught and exemplified containing copper in both
`
`Nam and the '261 patent is ZSM-5, which is addressed in the reasons for allowance of
`
`the '662 patent (see mf 0007 and 0012, and Examples 1-6 of Nam; and col. 1, line 57 to
`
`col. 2, line 6, col. 2, lines 29-39, and Examples 1-6 of the '261 patent). Since the
`
`examiner concluded that CHA based catalysts are very different from MFI catalysts
`
`(e.g., ZSM-5) and there is no predictability associated with their use in SCR materials,
`
`then the combination of Zones and Nam provides no new light with respect to the
`
`reason the examiner allowed claims 1-38 of the '662 patent. Thus, the combination
`
`does not raise a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`SNQs with respect to claims 1-38 using Dedecek in view of Chung:
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 1-11 of the '662
`10.
`patent are unpatentable over Dedecek in view of Chung.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 12-32 of the '662
`11.
`patent are unpatentable over Dedecek in view of Chung, and further in view of Patchett
`'843.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claims 33, 34 and 36-38 of
`12.
`the '662 patent are unpatentable over Dedecek in view of Chung, and further in view of
`Patchett '514.
`
`The request indicates that Requester considers that claim 35 of the '662 patent is
`13.
`unpatentable over Dedecek in view of Chung, and further in view of Tennison.
`
`It is agreed that consideration of the above cited prior art in S NQs 1 O to 13 raises
`
`a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-38. Section Eat pages 55-72
`
`of the request for reexamination are hereby incorporated by reference for their
`
`Exhibit 2008.010
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 7
`
`explanation of the teachings provided in the prior art of SNQs 10 to 13 that were not
`
`present in the prosecution of the application which became the '662 patent. There is a
`
`substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings
`
`important in deciding whether or not claims 1-38 were patentable. Accordingly, the prior
`
`art in SNQs 1 O to 13 raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-38
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the '662 patent.
`
`Use of Old Art
`
`The above SNQ 1 with respect to Yuen, which incorporates by reference
`
`Ritscher, and the above SNQs 2 to 5 relying at least upon Zones in view of Ishihara as
`
`evidenced by the Centi Declaration are based solely on patents and/or printed
`
`publications already cited/considered in an earlier concluded examination of. the patent
`
`being reexamined. On November 2, 2002, Public Law 107-273 was enacted. Title Ill,
`
`Subtitle A, Section 13105, part (a) of the Act revised the reexamination statute by
`
`adding the following new last sentence to 35 U.S.C. 303(a) and 312(a):
`
`"The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact
`
`that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered
`
`by the Office."
`
`For any reexamination ordered on or after November 2, 2002, the effective date
`
`of the statutory revision, reliance on previously cited/considered art, i.e., "old art," does
`
`Exhibit 2008.011
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 8
`
`not necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability
`
`(SNQ) that is based exclusively on that old art. Rather, determinations on whether a
`
`SNQ exists in such an instance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry done on a
`
`case-by-case basis.
`
`In the present instance, there exist SNQs based on Yuen, which incorporates by
`
`reference Ritschler, and based on Zones in view of Ishihara as evidenced by the Centi
`
`Declaration. A discussion of the specifics with respect to Yuen and Ritschler follows.
`
`Additionally, since SNQs 2 to 5 rely at least in part upon Zone in view of Ishihara as
`
`evidenced by the Centi Declaration, a discussion of the specifics with respect to Zones,
`
`Ishihara and the Centi Declaration follows.
`
`Yuen was applied as a primary reference under 35 USC 103(a) during
`
`prosecution of the '662 patent to reject all pending claims. In the Office action mailed
`
`January 13, 2009, the Examiner stated that Yuen does "not state that the copper to
`
`aluminum ratio should be greater than 0.25", but that "the Yuen reference indicates the
`
`amount of copper to be a result-effective variable for converting nitrogen oxide material,
`
`the same ultimate use envisioned by applicant." In the Remarks of March 18, 2009 and
`
`May 29, 2009, Patent Owner argued that "no specific ranges of copper loading or Cu/Al
`
`ratios are disclosed [in Yuen]." In the reasons for allowance mailed July 31, 2009, the
`
`examiner stated that "[t]he prior art fails to teach or establish a link between the silica to
`
`alumina ratio and the copper to aluminum ratio in the final catalyst"; that "[a]lthough it is
`
`known in the art to employ ratios that overlap these claimed limitation in ZSM-5
`
`catalysts, it is also known in this art that CHA based catalysts are very different from
`
`Exhibit 2008.012
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 9
`
`MFI catalysts and there is no predictability associated with their use in SCR"; and that
`
`"the rejection has been withdrawn because there is no teaching whatsoever regarding
`
`any amount of copper in the composition, and accordingly no motivation to provide a
`
`material with the herein claimed ratio of copper to alumina."
`
`However, during prosecution of the '662 patent, neither the examiner nor patent
`
`owner identified or discussed the fact that Yuen incorporates by reference Ritscher as
`
`follows (see~ 0034 of Yuen):
`
`One example of such a process for the catalytic reduction of oxides of
`nitrogen in the presence of a zeolite is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,297,328,
`issued Oct. 27, 1981 to Ritscher et al., which is incorporated by reference
`herein. There, the catalytic process is the combustion of carbon monoxide and
`hydrocarbons and the catalytic reduction of the oxides of nitrogen contained in a
`gas stream, such as the exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine. The
`zeolite used is metal ion-exchanged, doped or loaded sufficiently so as to provide
`an effective amount of catalytic copper metal or copper ions within or on the
`zeolite. In addition, the process is conducted in an excess of oxidant, e.g.,
`oxygen.
`
`While it is true that representative zeolites taught by Ritscher are ZSM-5, ZSM-8,
`
`ZSM-11 and ZSM-12 (see col. 6, lines 28-30), which are each MFI catalysts as referred
`
`to by the examiner in the reasons for allowance, neither the examiner nor patent owner
`
`identified or discussed the fact that Ritscher is incorporated into Yuen with regard to the
`
`description of catalysts and the amount of copper. Thus, neither the examiner nor
`
`patent owner identified or discussed Ritscher's teaching at col. 10, lines 28-29 of a
`
`zeolite containing 7.3% copper by weight. In the request for reexamination, at page 15,
`
`which is hereby incorporated by reference, it is shown that when 7.3% by weight copper
`
`is used with the silica to alumina mole ratio of 166 for the zeolite in Yuen's Example 3
`
`(see the table at the bottom of p. 4 of Yuen), the Cu/Al atomic ratio is 6.39 as here
`
`Exhibit 2008.013
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 10
`
`claimed. Accordingly, Yuen, which incorporates Ritscher by reference, is being viewed
`
`in a new light compared to how it was viewed during prosecution of the '662 patent.
`
`Zones was applied as a primary reference under 35 USC 103(a) during
`
`prosecution of the '662 patent to reject all pending claims in the Office action mailed
`
`January 13, 2009. In the Remarks filed March 18, 2009 and May 29, 2009, patent
`
`owner argued that in Zones there is "[n]o specific copper loadings or Cu/Al ratios
`
`disclosed." In the reasons for allowance mailed August 11, 2009, as noted above, the
`
`examiner stated that the prior art fails to teach or establish a link betwe.en the silica to
`
`alumina ratio and the copper to aluminum ratio in the final catalyst. However, while
`
`Ishihara is of record in the '662 patent, it was never discussed by either the examiner or
`
`patent owner. Thus, the examiner and patent owner never identified or discussed the
`
`teaching in Ishihara of copper ion-exchanged SAP0-34 containing about 3% and about
`
`4% by weight of Cu+2 (see abstract, p. 94 left col., and p. 95 right col.), and the teaching
`
`in Ishihara that SAP0-34 is thermostable with high activity for NO reduction (p. 102).
`
`This is important because SAP0-34 is a well known molecular sieve having a chabazite
`
`structure as in Zones and as here claimed. As noted in 4fl7 of the Centi Declaration, if 3
`
`wt.% and 4 wt.% of cupper was loaded into the chabazite of Zones described in
`
`Example 1 having a silica to alumina ratio of 22, the resulting copper loaded chabazite
`
`zeolite would have a copper to aluminum atomic ratio of 0.35 and 0.47, respectively.
`
`Such was also never identified or discussed by either the examiner or patent owner.
`
`According, Zones and Ishihara, as evidenced by the Centi Declaration, are being
`
`Exhibit 2008.014
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Page 11
`
`viewed in a new light compared to how they were viewed during prosecution of the '662
`
`patent.
`
`Duty to Disclose
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR
`
`1.56S(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
`
`proceeding, involving Patent No. 7,601,662 throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise
`
`the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should
`
`be directed:
`
`By EFS: Registered users may submit via the electronic filing system EFS-Web
`at https://sportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf.html
`
`By Mail to: Attn: Mail Stop "Inter Partes Reexam"
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P. 0. Box 1450
`Alexandria VA 22313-1450
`
`Please FAX any communications to:
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Exhibit 2008.015
`
`

`
`Page 12
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,453
`Art Unit: 3991
`
`Please hand-deliver any communications to:
`Customer Service Window
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Randolph Building, Lobby Level
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Signed:
`
`Alan Diamond
`Patent Reexamination Specialist
`Central Reexamination Unit 3991
`
`D~~
`
`Supsrvisory Patent Examiner
`CRU • Art Unit 399·1
`
`Exhibit 2008.016