Interference No. 103,270
interests to allege later dates than it
could prove, and if senior party did so, no
prejudice could be suffered by junior
party.
Finally, it should be noted that the granting of an
extension of time by way of a conference call, as in this
case, was specifically sanctioned in the comments of the
Notice of Rulemaking when § 1.645 was adopted (49 F.R. 48416,
48444 (Dec. 12, 1984), 1050 O.G. 385, 413 (Jan. 29, 1985)):
§ 1.610(d) authorizes an examiner-in-chief
[now APJ] to hold a conference call to
resolve issues and to enter an appropriate
order following the conference call. A
conference call may be used to obtain an
extension of time. If the examiner-in-
chief grants the request, an order may be
entered--in which case a written motion is
not necessary. The order provides the
written record required by 37 CFR 1.2. . .
. It should be noted that an examiner-in-
chief may require a written motion
notwithstanding a conference call.
Accordingly, the request of Keith et al. that we
strike Coelho's preliminary statement and limit his proof of
conception to his (effective) filing date is denied.
Priority of Invention
Neither party alleges in their preliminary statement
either a prior actual reduction to practice or derivation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007