Ex Parte DIMARCHI et al - Page 5



              Appeal No. 2004-0250                                                               Page 5                
              Application No. 09/226,412                                                                               

                                                     Discussion                                                        
                     Jensen has been applied under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).  The Jensen patent is based                     
              on an application filed on January 6, 1999, and claims benefit of Provisional Application                
              No. 60/070752 filed January 8, 1998.  Appellants have not contested that the claims of                   
              Jensen are entitled to the earlier filing date of March 27, 1997 of Provisional Application              
              No. 60/041648.  Indeed, their argument on appeal, i.e., the declarations filed under 37                  
              CFR § 1.1313 are effective to remove the rejection premised upon Jensen, allege a                        
              conception date prior to March 27, 1997.  See, e.g., Declaration II, para. 3.4  The                      
              examiner has concluded:                                                                                  
                     The Jensen ‘028 reference is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application                             
                     publication of a pending or patented application that claims the rejected                         
                     invention.  An affidavit or declaration is inappropriate under 37 CFR §                           
                     1.131(a) when the reference is claiming the same patentable invention,                            
                     see MPEP § 2306.  If the reference and this application are not commonly                          
                     owned, the reference can only be overcome by establishing priority of                             
                     invention through interference proceedings.  See MPEP Chapter 2300 for                            
                     information on initiating interference proceedings.                                               
              Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5.                                                     
                     In response, appellants argue that an interference cannot be declared between                     
              the present application and Jensen since no interference-in-fact exists between                          


                     3   There are three declarations under 37 CFR § 1.131 of record.  The first                       
              was received August 17, 2000 (Paper No. 11) (Declaration I), the second received                         
              January 18, 2002 (Paper No. 21) (Declaration II), and the third received June 20, 2002                   
              (Paper No. 24) (Declaration III).                                                                        
                     4  We note that the “Protocol Summary for Study Design Approval Committee”                        
              attached to Declaration II includes the heading “Study Design Approval Date: March 18,                   
              1997,” which date is prior to the March 20, 1997 date of the Jensen priority claim under                 
              35 U.S.C. § 119.                                                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007