Who declares and administers an interference proceeding?
The declaration and administration of an interference proceeding involve multiple parties within the USPTO. According to MPEP 2301: “Once an interference has been suggested under 37 CFR 41.202, the examiner refers the suggested interference to the Board. An administrative patent judge declares the interference, which is then administered at the Board.” Specifically: The examiner initially…
Read MoreWho typically conducts an inter partes reexamination?
Typically, the same patent examiner who decided to grant the reexamination request conducts the examination. As stated in MPEP § 2655: “The examination is ordinarily conducted by the same patent examiner who made the decision that the reexamination request should be granted.” This ensures continuity and familiarity with the case throughout the reexamination process. To…
Read MoreWho typically conducts ex parte reexaminations?
Typically, the same patent examiner who made the decision on whether the reexamination request should be granted conducts the examination. As stated in MPEP § 2255: “The examination will ordinarily be conducted by the same patent examiner who made the decision on whether the reexamination request should be granted.” This ensures continuity in the examination…
Read MoreWho can suggest an interference in the patent examination process?
According to MPEP 2304, an interference can be suggested by either an applicant or an examiner. Specifically, the MPEP states: “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant or from an examiner.” This means that both parties involved in the patent application process have the ability to initiate the interference procedure if they…
Read MoreWhen can an examiner make a rejection based on prosecution laches?
An examiner should exercise caution when considering a rejection based on prosecution laches. According to MPEP 2190: “An examiner should obtain approval from the TC Director before making a rejection on the grounds of prosecution history laches.” This requirement ensures that such rejections are made only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in…
Read MoreCan the title of a patent be changed during reexamination?
Normally, the title of a patent does not need to be changed during reexamination. However, in rare instances, it may be necessary. The MPEP 2660.02 states: “In those very rare instances where a change of the title does become necessary, the examiner should point out the need for the change as early as possible in…
Read MoreWhat is the role of the patent examiner in investigating potential public uses under the AIA?
Under the AIA, patent examiners play an important role in investigating potential public uses that could affect the patentability of an invention. The MPEP provides guidance on this matter: “[O]nce an examiner becomes aware that a claimed invention has been the subject of a potentially public use, the examiner should require the applicant to provide…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s role in establishing prima facie obviousness?
The patent examiner plays a crucial role in establishing prima facie obviousness. According to the MPEP: “The examiner bears the initial burden of using facts and reasoning to establish a prima facie conclusion of obviousness.” This means the examiner must provide evidence and logical reasoning to show why the claimed invention would have been obvious…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s role in evaluating experimental use claims?
When an applicant claims experimental use to counter a prima facie case of unpatentability, the patent examiner has a specific role in evaluating these claims. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4): “Once alleged experimental activity is advanced by an applicant to explain a prima facie case of unpatentability, the examiner must determine whether the scope and length…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s role after an interference judgment?
The examiner’s role after an interference judgment is minimal, as stated in MPEP 2308.01: “No further action is needed from the examiner on that claim.” This means that once a judgment has been rendered in an interference proceeding, the examiner does not need to take any additional steps regarding the disposed claim. However, the examiner…
Read More