直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

Ex Parte Appeal Decision:  What Next?

December 08, 2015

Authored and Edited by Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Adriana L. Burgy

After receiving a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an appeal from an examiner’s final rejection during ex parte examination, Applicants have limited options.  Applicants can:

(1) request rehearing under Board Rule 52 (37 C.F.R. § 41.52);

(2) reopen prosecution by filing a request continued examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114;

(3) appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 141; or

(4) commence a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. § 145. 

Options (2)-(4) are mutually exclusive, and must be commenced within 63 days from the mailing date of the Board’s decision.  Prior to pursuing any of those options, however, Applicants may file a request for rehearing by the panel.  Requests for rehearing must be filed within two months from the mailing date of the Board’s decision.  If an Applicant requests rehearing, the time-period for pursuing options (2)-(4) is reset to be 63 days after the Board acts on the rehearing request.

Requests for rehearing must state, with particularity, the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.  New arguments or evidence not previously relied on are not permitted in a request for rehearing except under the following circumstances:  (1) to address a recent relevant decision of the Board or a Federal Court (see Board Rule 52(a)(2)); (2) to address a new ground of rejection designated as such in the Board’s decision (see Board Rule 52(a)(3)); or (3) to argue that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection (see Board Rule 52(a)(4)).

Click here to visit the USPTO website regarding procedure following decision by the Board.

Tags

patent application, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), District Court, ex parte reexamination, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Contacts

Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email
Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP