Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
adequately set forth how the alleged error in Hoshino’s
patent arose or occurred.
We cannot sustain the APJ’s decision on this motion.
The APJ abused his discretion in holding that Hoshino’s
reissue declaration failed to particularly specify how the
alleged error in the original patent arose or occurred. The
error, as clearly specified in the reissue declaration, is the
failure to include the narrower claims. How the error arose
or occurred, as specified in the reissue declaration and
supplemental reissue declaration (filed with Hoshino’s
opposition to Tanaka’s motion for judgment), is by failure of
the inventors and representatives of the assignee to
appreciate that the broader original claims may be lost in an
interference contest. The APJ erred in requiring more
specific facts, given that no evidence in the record has been
alluded to which suggests
that deceptive intention is involved with respect to Hoshino.
It is true, as the APJ correctly recognized, that a concern
for the potential of losing a broad claim in an interference
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007