What happens when a patent in ex parte reexamination becomes involved in an interference?
When a patent undergoing ex parte reexamination becomes involved in an interference proceeding, the general policy of the USPTO is to continue both proceedings concurrently. As stated in the MPEP, “The general policy of the Office is that a reexamination proceeding will not be delayed, or stayed, because of an interference or the possibility of…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required when suggesting an interference in a patent application?
When suggesting an interference in a patent application, the applicant must provide specific evidence to support their claim. According to MPEP 2304.02, the required evidence includes: A claim chart comparing at least one claim from the application to the proposed count(s). A detailed explanation of why the applicant will prevail on priority. Copies of the…
Read MoreWhat actions can the CRU take during copending reexamination and interference proceedings?
What actions can the CRU take during copending reexamination and interference proceedings? During copending reexamination and interference proceedings, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) can take certain actions, but with limitations: The CRU may not issue a reexamination certificate without agreement from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The CRU must consult with the…
Read MoreWhat is a constructive reduction-to-practice in patent law?
A constructive reduction-to-practice in patent law refers to a description in a patent application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count in an interference proceeding. According to MPEP 2304.02(c), “A description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count is called a constructive reduction-to-practice of the count.…
Read MoreWhat is a constructive reduction-to-practice in the context of interference?
A constructive reduction-to-practice in the context of interference refers to a description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count. MPEP § 2304.02(c) states: “A description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count is called a constructive reduction-to-practice of the count. One disclosed embodiment…
Read MoreWhat happens if an applicant refuses to add a required claim for interference?
If an applicant refuses to add a claim required under 37 CFR 41.202(c), there are significant consequences. According to MPEP 2304.04(b): “Refusal to add a required claim will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of the required claim.” This means that the applicant would be barred from claiming not only the…
Read MoreWhat happens if an applicant fails to respond to a rejection in an interference?
If an applicant fails to respond to a rejection in an interference, the consequences can be severe. According to MPEP 2303: “Failure to respond to a rejection on the merits in an application subject to an interference will result in a recommendation that the claims of the application be rejected.” This means that if an…
Read MoreWhat is the Board’s jurisdiction during an interference proceeding?
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) acquires jurisdiction over any involved file when it initiates a contested case, such as an interference. According to MPEP 2307: “The Board acquires jurisdiction over any involved file when the Board initiates a contested case. Other proceedings for the involved file within the Office are suspended except…
Read MoreCan a reissue application be used to provoke an interference?
Yes, a reissue application can be used to provoke an interference under certain circumstances. According to the MPEP, In appropriate circumstances, a reissue application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) (first to invent) may be placed into interference with a patent or pending application. However, there are specific conditions that must be met: The reissue…
Read MoreCan a reissue application be based solely on the Office’s failure to declare an interference?
No, a reissue application cannot be based solely on the Office’s failure to declare an interference. The MPEP clearly states: Reissue error must be based upon applicant error; a reissue cannot be based solely on the error of the Office for failing to declare an interference or to suggest copying claims for the purpose of…
Read More