What is the policy on issuing patents with allowed claims in relation to potential interferences?

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) emphasizes the importance of issuing patents with allowed claims to the greatest extent possible, even when potential interferences exist. This is due to the fact that applicants may be eligible for patent term adjustments to offset delays in examination. As stated in MPEP 2303.01: “Since applicants may be…

Read More

What types of patent documents might lead to the discovery of additional parties in an interference?

During an interference proceeding, an examiner may discover additional parties through various patent documents. The MPEP 2307.04 mentions: “During the course of an interference, the examiner may come across applications or patents of parties that claim the same invention, but are not already involved in the interference.” This indicates that the types of patent documents…

Read More

What is the relationship between a judgment of no interference-in-fact and patent priority?

A judgment of no interference-in-fact is directly related to patent priority issues. As stated in MPEP 2308.03(b): “A judgment of no interference-in-fact means that no interference is needed to resolve priority between the parties.” This judgment indicates that there is no conflict in priority between the parties’ claims that requires resolution through an interference proceeding.…

Read More

What does a judgment of “no interference-in-fact” mean in patent law?

A judgment of “no interference-in-fact” in patent law means that no interference proceeding is necessary to resolve priority between the parties. As stated in MPEP 2308.03(b): “A judgment of no interference-in-fact means that no interference is needed to resolve priority between the parties.” This judgment indicates that the claims of the parties do not overlap…

Read More

Does a judgment of no interference-in-fact result in either party losing the interference?

No, a judgment of no interference-in-fact does not result in either party losing the interference. The MPEP 2308.03(b) clearly states: “Neither party has lost the interference for the purpose of estoppel consistent with 37 CFR 41.127(a)(1), even if one of the parties suggested the interference.” This means that neither party is considered to have lost…

Read More

What are the typical circumstances where an adequate written description issue arises?

According to MPEP 2163.03, there are six typical circumstances where an adequate written description issue can arise: Amendment affecting a claim Reliance on filing date of parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120 Reliance on priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 Support for a claim corresponding to a count in an interference Original claim not sufficiently described…

Read More

How are means-plus-function limitations interpreted in interference proceedings?

In interference proceedings, means-plus-function limitations require special consideration. According to MPEP 2301.03: “Claims reciting means-plus-function limitations, in particular, might have different scopes depending on the corresponding structure described in the written description.” This means that even if two claims have identical language, they may not necessarily be drawn to the same invention if they use…

Read More