Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
Preliminary Statement
The APJ is correct that Hoshino’s preliminary statement
is not in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.622(b) which requires
that the preliminary statement state whether the invention was
made in the United States, a NAFTA country (and which NAFTA
country), a WTO member country (and which one), or in a place
other than the United States, a NAFTA country, or a WTO member
country. No such statement is contained in party Hoshino’s
preliminary statement. But where the party does not seek to
introduce evidence of actual reduction to practice, as is the
case with party Hoshino, the omission is harmless or
inconsequential and thus the APJ abused
his discretion in holding that party Hoshino is deemed as not
having filed a preliminary statement.
The sufficiency of the reissue
declarations of party Hoshino’s
reissue application 08/204,661
Tanaka’s contingent motion for judgment (T5) asserts that
claims 18-33 in Hoshino’s reissue claims 18-33 are
unpatentable for lack of an adequate reissue declaration. The
APJ granted this motion, on the ground that the reissue
declaration and supplemental reissue declaration do not
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007