MUKHERJEE et al v. KLOOS - Page 1




                                       The opinion in support of the decision being                                                      
                                  entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                                   
                Paper 24                                                                                                                 
                Filed by: Interference Trial Section Merits Panel                                                                        
                Box Interference                                                        Filed:                                           
                Washington, D.C.  20231                                         November 20, 2001                                        
                Tel:  703-308-9797                                                                                                       
                Fax:  703-305-0942                                                                                                       
                                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                             
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                              
                                                      AND INTERFERENCES                                                                  
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                                    DEBABRATA MUKHERJEE                                                                  
                                                 and CLIFFORD M. KAUFMANN,                                                               
                                                             Junior Party                                                                
                                                      (Application 08/872,927),                                                          
                                                                   v.                                                                    
                                                        STEVEN D. KLOOS,                                                                 
                                                             Senior Party,                                                               
                                                          (Patent 5,759,639).                                                            
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                                   Patent Interference No. 104,665                                                       
                                                          _______________                                                                
                Before: SCHAFER, TORCZON and GARDNER-LANE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                 

                SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                    

                                                        FINAL JUDGMENT                                                                   
                        Murkherjee, the junior party, did not file a preliminary statement or any preliminary motions.                   
                In a telephone conversation with paralegal specialist Yolunda Townes on November 6, 2001, counsel                        
                for Mukherjee stated that no additional papers would be filed.  Mukherjee is, therefore, restricted                      
                to the effective filing date of its application.  Because it did not file a preliminary statement,                       
                Mukherjee is not permitted to prove that it made the invention prior to its filing date (37 CFR §                        
                1.629(c)(2)(i)) or to present a case-in-chief (37CFR § 1.651(c)(2)).  Since Mukherjee did not file                       






Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007