MPEP § 2308.03(c) — No Second Interference (Annotated Rules)
§2308.03(c) No Second Interference
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2308.03(c), 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.
No Second Interference
This section addresses No Second Interference. Contains: 1 prohibition and 2 guidance statements.
Key Rules
PTAB Jurisdiction
No second interference should occur between the same parties on patentably indistinct subject matter. If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, that holding may not be reopened in further examination. If a party that lost the earlier interference is again claiming the same invention as the count, the interfering claims should be rejected as estopped.
No second interference should occur between the same parties on patentably indistinct subject matter. If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, that holding may not be reopened in further examination. If a party that lost the earlier interference is again claiming the same invention as the count, the interfering claims should be rejected as estopped.
PTAB Contested Case Procedures
No second interference should occur between the same parties on patentably indistinct subject matter. If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, that holding may not be reopened in further examination. If a party that lost the earlier interference is again claiming the same invention as the count, the interfering claims should be rejected as estopped.
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 § 2308.03(c) — No Second Interference
Source: USPTO2308.03(c) No Second Interference [R-08.2017]
No second interference should occur between the same parties on patentably indistinct subject matter. If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, that holding may not be reopened in further examination. If a party that lost the earlier interference is again claiming the same invention as the count, the interfering claims should be rejected as estopped.