<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Petitions Requesting Continued Reexamination (RCR)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/07/37-c-f-r-%c2%a7-1-182-petitions-to-request-for-continued-reexamination-rcr/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/07/37-c-f-r-%c2%a7-1-182-petitions-to-request-for-continued-reexamination-rcr</link>
	<description>Patents Post Grant is the leading legal blog, providing daily insight into patent reexamination, patent reissue and post grant review strategies.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:51:43 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul F. Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/07/37-c-f-r-%c2%a7-1-182-petitions-to-request-for-continued-reexamination-rcr/comment-page-1#comment-2632</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul F. Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=2911#comment-2632</guid>
		<description>If the patent owner had filed additional intermediate and narrower scope claims earlier in the reexamination, they would not be stuck needing to try to enter new claims after final.   
   As long as the PTO does not unreasonably deny petitions to cancel or narrow claims in limited appropriate unusual circumstances, that should do a better job of getting reexamination statutory &quot;special dispatch&quot; than adding another regular amendment opportunity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the patent owner had filed additional intermediate and narrower scope claims earlier in the reexamination, they would not be stuck needing to try to enter new claims after final.<br />
   As long as the PTO does not unreasonably deny petitions to cancel or narrow claims in limited appropriate unusual circumstances, that should do a better job of getting reexamination statutory &#8220;special dispatch&#8221; than adding another regular amendment opportunity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

