Interference No. 104,031 Paper No. 23
Rutter v. Murray Page 2
interference because Rutter's species are not obvious in view
of Murray's genus. This contention is consistent with a
determination in a previous interference (101,793) that the
species is separately patentable from the genus. It is also
consistent with a statement in the examiner's statement under
37 CFR § 1.609 that "The Murray invention does not anticipate
nor render obvious that of Rutter et al." Based on these
facts, the present interference cannot be maintained.
Nevertheless, questions involving the patentability of
Murray's claims were raised (see Paper No. 2) and persist in
the face of the responses from the parties (see Paper No. 22).
Consequently, a recommendation under 37 CFR § 1.659(c) is
appropriate.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record of this interference, it
is
ORDERED that judgment be awarded to both parties; and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this decision be given a
paper number and be entered in the administrative record of
each of Rutter's involved patents and Murray's involved
applications; and it is
RECOMMENDED that the examiner on assuming jurisdiction
over the Murray applications consider
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007