MPEP § 2308.04 — Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Annotated Rules)
§2308.04 Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2308.04, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
This section addresses Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Contains: 1 prohibition and 2 other statements.
Key Rules
Board Decision Types
The losing party after an interference judgment has the right to appeal an unfavorable Board decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). If the losing party before the Board is unsuccessful after appealing to the CAFC, with all claims being finally refused, and a formal mandate is issued regarding the pending claims then the proceedings in the case are considered terminated on the issue date of the mandate. In accordance with Morganroth v. Quigg, 885 F.2d 843, 12 USPQ2d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the subject application may not be revived by the USPTO on petition because the USPTO’s authority to revive applications does not extend to an alleged abandonment resulting from actions taken in proceedings outside the agency. See MPEP § 1216.01, subsection I.A.
The losing party after an interference judgment has the right to appeal an unfavorable Board decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). If the losing party before the Board is unsuccessful after appealing to the CAFC, with all claims being finally refused, and a formal mandate is issued regarding the pending claims then the proceedings in the case are considered terminated on the issue date of the mandate. In accordance with Morganroth v. Quigg, 885 F.2d 843, 12 USPQ2d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the subject application may not be revived by the USPTO on petition because the USPTO’s authority to revive applications does not extend to an alleged abandonment resulting from actions taken in proceedings outside the agency. See MPEP § 1216.01, subsection I.A.
PTAB Jurisdiction
The losing party after an interference judgment has the right to appeal an unfavorable Board decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). If the losing party before the Board is unsuccessful after appealing to the CAFC, with all claims being finally refused, and a formal mandate is issued regarding the pending claims then the proceedings in the case are considered terminated on the issue date of the mandate. In accordance with Morganroth v. Quigg, 885 F.2d 843, 12 USPQ2d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the subject application may not be revived by the USPTO on petition because the USPTO’s authority to revive applications does not extend to an alleged abandonment resulting from actions taken in proceedings outside the agency. See MPEP § 1216.01, subsection I.A.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Board Decision Types PTAB Jurisdiction | MPEP § 1216.01 |
| Board Decision Types PTAB Jurisdiction | In accordance with Morganroth v. Quigg, 885 F.2d 843, 12 USPQ2d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1989) |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2308.04 — Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Source: USPTO2308.04 Office Procedure Following Decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [R-10.2019]
The losing party after an interference judgment has the right to appeal an unfavorable Board decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). If the losing party before the Board is unsuccessful after appealing to the CAFC, with all claims being finally refused, and a formal mandate is issued regarding the pending claims then the proceedings in the case are considered terminated on the issue date of the mandate. In accordance with Morganroth v. Quigg, 885 F.2d 843, 12 USPQ2d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the subject application may not be revived by the USPTO on petition because the USPTO’s authority to revive applications does not extend to an alleged abandonment resulting from actions taken in proceedings outside the agency. See MPEP § 1216.01, subsection I.A.