How does restriction practice apply to potential interferences?
Restriction practice in the context of potential interferences is addressed in MPEP 2303. The section states: “Potential interferences present an additional situation in which a restriction requirement may be appropriate. Specifically, restriction of interfering claims from non-interfering claims, or from unpatentable claims whose further prosecution would unduly delay initiation of an interference, can be an…
Read MoreHow can an applicant respond to an examiner’s requirement to add a claim for interference?
When an examiner requires an applicant to add a claim for interference under 37 CFR 41.202(c), the applicant must comply but can also express disagreement. The MPEP outlines several ways an applicant can respond: Identify an existing claim in their application or another of their applications that provides a basis for the proposed interference Add…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for suggesting an interference?
According to MPEP 2304.02(b), when suggesting an interference, an applicant must meet several requirements as outlined in 37 CFR 41.202. These include: Identifying all claims believed to interfere Proposing one or more counts Showing how the claims correspond to the count(s) Providing a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party for each…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for requesting access to Office records related to a contested case?
According to MPEP 2307.02, any request for access to or copies of Office records directly related to a contested case must adhere to the following requirements: The request must be filed with the Board. It must precisely identify the records being requested. For copies, the appropriate fee set under 37 CFR 1.19(b) must be included.…
Read MoreWhat determines the requirements for declaring an interference?
The requirements for declaring an interference depend on who suggests it. As stated in MPEP 2304: “Who suggests the interference determines what must be done and shown prior to declaration of an interference.” This means that the process and evidence required to declare an interference may differ based on whether it was suggested by an…
Read MoreWhat should I do if I witness an ex parte communication in a patent interference?
If you witness or become aware of an ex parte communication in a patent interference, you should promptly report it to the Board. The MPEP 2307.01 states: “Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between interfering subject matter and obviousness in patent law?
The relationship between interfering subject matter and obviousness in patent law is closely intertwined. According to MPEP 2301.03: An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. This statement…
Read MoreWhat is a rejection based on disclaimer in patent law?
A rejection based on disclaimer in patent law occurs when an applicant is considered to have disclaimed the subject matter involved. This can happen in several scenarios, as outlined in MPEP 2304.04(c): Failure to make claims suggested for interference with another application Failure to copy a claim from a patent when suggested by the examiner…
Read MoreHow are reissue applications treated in the context of interferences?
MPEP 2303 discusses the treatment of reissue applications in interferences: “Applicants sometimes, however, file reissue applications to amend patent claims in response to events occurring in the interference. To maintain parity with other applicants, the Board does not permit reissue applicants to add claims that would not correspond to a count.“ This policy, based on…
Read MoreWhat regulations govern the conduct of derivation proceedings?
The conduct of derivation proceedings is governed by regulations prescribed by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). According to MPEP 2310.01, which cites 35 U.S.C. 135(b): “The Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards for the conduct of derivation proceedings, including requiring parties to provide sufficient evidence to prove and…
Read More