objections. Hence, according to Ogata, an amendment did not need
to accompany the Ogata petition to revive. Lastly, Ogata noted
that the required fee had been authorized to be charged to a PTO
deposit account (page 2 of Paper No. 14 in the file of
application 08/193,589). We note that the fee was charged by the
PTO to that deposit account. Id. at page 1.
B. Discussion
Ogata maintains that Manzo did not raise the "abandonment"
issue properly. Whether the issue was raised properly or not is
not particularly important. The fact is Manzo is wrong on the
merits, because the Ogata application is pending and is not
abandoned.
We disagree with Manzo's abandonment argument on the merits.
On this record, it turns out that the Ogata application was
abandoned on the date the NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE was
entered. Hence, we can agree for purposes of discussion that the
board may have lacked jurisdiction to declare the interference on
November 4, 1996. However, following revival of the Ogata
application by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for
Patents and entry of the ORDER REDECLARING INTERFERENCE, the
board acquired subject matter jurisdiction over the interference.
Manzo's argument that the petition to revive should not have
been granted because Ogata did not file "responsive pleadings" or
a fee with the petition to revive is without merit. It is true
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007