Interference No. 103,036
Burroughs et al. to file a reciprocal terminal disclaimer in43
its involved reissue application. The party Cataldi et al.'s
fears appear to have been addressed by the examiner. If any of
the three later filed applications, if matured to patents, and
the involved reissue application becomes assigned to an assignee
other than that of the reissue application, the former will
become unenforceable by operation of law since the disclaimers
provide that any patent granted on any of the three later filed
applications shall be enforceable only for and during such period
that it and any patent granted on the involved reissue
application is commonly assigned. Under such a circumstance, it
does not appear possible that a suit by two different assignees
could reasonably be expected.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied.
Issue (6)
The party Cataldi et al.'s opening brief requests that
we decide whether Burroughs et al.'s reissue claims 13 to 51 are
unpatentable for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 251, as urged
in motion no. 24. Since we entered the party Burrough et al.'s
amendment in Issue (3), supra, we will consider motion no. 24 as
On page 152 of its opposition brief, the party Burroughs et43
al. has offered to file such a reciprocal terminal disclaimer if
required.
-65-
Page: Previous 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007