Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
priority contest can be just as legitimate as a concern for
the potential of losing the broad claim on the basis of prior
art.
The APJ also erred in discrediting the reissue
declaration on the basis that it was not executed and signed
by the inventors themselves but by an officer of the assignee.
As Hoshino correctly points out, 37 CFR § 1.172(a)
specifically provides that "a reissue oath may be made and
sworn to or declaration made by the assignee of the entire
interest if the [reissue declaration] does not seek to enlarge
the scope of the claims of the original patent."
Hoshino’s motion to excuse the delay in
opposing Tanaka’s motion for benefit of the
filing date of Japanese application 60-219521
On March 2, 1994, Tanaka filed a motion (T1) (Paper No.
9) for benefit of Japanese applications 60-219521 (October 2,
1985) and 61-058453 (March 17, 1986). No opposition to this
Tanaka motion for benefit was filed by party Hoshino during
the period for filing such opposition. On September 21, 1994,
more than six months after the filing of Tanaka’s motion for
benefit, Hoshino filed a motion (Paper No. 34) to excuse delay
in opposing Tanaka’s motion for benefit, accompanied by the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007