Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
proposition we cited In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d
1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 40
USPQ2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1210
(1997) (Decision at 33). Gartside held that junior party
Forgac's amendment canceling all of his claims involved in the
interference styled as "Forgac v. Gartside" did not divest the
Board of jurisdiction over that interference and thus over
Gartside's involved claims. 203 F.3d at 1316-18, 53 USPQ2d at
1776-78. Likewise, Guinn held that Guinn's statutory
disclaimer of his single claim involved in the interference
did not divest the Board of jurisdiction over the interference
and that claim. 96 F.3d at 1421-22, 40 USPQ2d at 1159-60.
Furthermore, as we explained in the Decision at pages 33-
35, the interference was "properly declared" under
§ 135(a) in accordance with Perkins v. Kwon, 886 F.2d 325,
327 & n.2, 12 USPQ2d 1308, 1309-10 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1989),
because (1) Seifert's reissue application was a "pending
application" under 37 CFR § 1.601(i) at the time the
declaration notice was mailed and (2) the examiner, prior to
declaration of the interference, had determined that Seifert's
now involved
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007