Interference No. 101,981
under
§ 1.633(e) to declare an additional interference between Qadri’s
divisional application and Beyers application in interference 27.
There being no issue of interfering subject matter, we cannot render a judgment with respect to
Qadri’s patent. We therefore dismiss this motion.
Summary
With respect to the motions, we hold the following:
QM1 Dismissed
QM2 Dismissed
QM3 Dismissed
QM4 Dismissed
BeM1 Dismissed
BeM2 Dismissed
BeM3 Dismissed
BaM1 Denied
Bam2 Moot
BaM3 Moot
BaM3 Moot
JUDGMENT
27 We also point out that, given Qadri’s notice that they would file a divisional application, if Beyers
had a concern about the potential of starting another interference, as they said they had (paper no.
245, p. 3), it was incumbent on Beyers to take steps to file a motion requesting the declaration of an
additional interference under § 1.633(e). Since no such steps were taken, this failure to act may
raise an issue of estoppel.
84
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007