Interference No. 103,146
Applicants for patents, including their patent
attorneys, are required to prosecute patent applications in
the
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) with candor, good faith, and
honesty. See Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178,
33 USPQ2d 1823, 1826 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also 37 CFR § 1.56.
A breach of this duty may constitute inequitable conduct.
Inequitable conduct due to failure to disclose
material information must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence of: (1) prior art that was material; (2) knowledge
chargeable to
an applicant of that prior art and of its materiality; and
(3) failure of the applicant to disclose the art resulting
from an intent to mislead the PTO. See Molins, 48 F.3d at
1178, 33 USPQ2d at 1826; FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835
F.2d 1411, 1415, 5 USPQ2d 1112, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Such
proof of inequitable conduct may be rebutted by a showing
that: (a) the prior art was not material; (b) if the prior art
was material, a showing that the applicant did not know of
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007