Why are ex parte communications prohibited in patent interferences?
Ex parte communications are prohibited in patent interferences to maintain the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. The MPEP 2307.01 explains: “Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent.” This prohibition…
Read MoreWhat is the definition of a contested case in patent law?
According to MPEP 2301.02, a contested case is defined as: “[A] Board proceeding other than an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134 or a petition under § 41.3. An appeal in an inter partes reexamination is not a contested case.” In simpler terms, a contested case is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle paper files in the interference process?
The USPTO has transitioned most application files to the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system, but some older files may still exist in paper form. The MPEP 2304.01(b) addresses this issue: “Although the official records for most applications have been converted into Image File Wrapper (IFW) files, some records exist only in paper form, particularly older…
Read MoreWhat is the time frame for adding a required claim for interference?
When an examiner requires an applicant to add a claim for interference, there is a specific time frame that must be followed. According to 37 CFR 41.202(c): “Failure to satisfy the requirement within a period (not less than one month) the examiner sets will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of…
Read MoreWhat is a threshold issue in a patent interference?
A threshold issue in a patent interference is a critical concept that can potentially end the proceeding early. The MPEP 2301.02 defines it as follows: “Threshold issue means an issue that, if resolved in favor of the movant, would deprive the opponent of standing in the interference. Threshold issues may include: (1) No interference-in-fact, and…
Read MoreWhy is suspension of prosecution discouraged in potential interference cases?
The MPEP discourages the suspension of prosecution in potential interference cases. Specifically, it states: Suspension of prosecution pending a possible interference should be rare and should not be entered prior to the consultation required by Practice 1 above. This guidance reflects a shift in patent examination practice. The MPEP explains the reasoning behind this approach:…
Read MoreHow does an examiner suggest an interference when an interfering claim already exists in an application?
When an interfering claim already exists in an application, the process for suggesting an interference is different. According to MPEP 2304.04(a): “If the applicant already has a claim to the same subject matter as a claim in the application or patent of another inventor, then there is no need to require the applicant to add…
Read MoreWhat is the definition of a senior party in a patent interference?
In patent interference proceedings, the designation of a senior party is crucial. The MPEP 2301.02 defines a senior party as follows: “Senior party means the party entitled to the presumption under § 41.207(a)(1) that it is the prior inventor. Any other party is a junior party.” This definition implies that the senior party has a…
Read MoreWhat is the definition of “same invention” in the context of patent interference?
In the context of patent interference, the “same invention” is defined by 37 CFR 41.203(a). According to MPEP 2304.04(a), when suggesting an interference, the examiner should include “an explanation of why at least one claim of every application or patent defines the same invention within the meaning of 37 CFR 41.203(a).” This regulation provides the…
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 More