intention of paying any maintenance fee. A further review of the
records of the Patent and Trademark Office confirm Mr. Uhl's
representation that a maintenance fee has not been paid in
connection with the Sundararaman patent involved in the
interference.
On Monday, 20 March 2000 Administrator Medley also had a
telephone conversation with counsel for West (Gerald E. Deitch,
Esq.) wherein counsel was advised that there would be no need for
West to respond to the ORDER SETTING TIMES FOR TAKING CERTAIN
ACTION (Paper 2) entered 15 March 2000.
Under the circumstances, the Sundararaman patent was an
expired patent at the time the interference was declared. Under
35 U.S.C. § 135(a), the board has jurisdiction to institute an
interference only with an unexpired patent. Since the
Sundararaman patent was expired as of 15 March 2000, it follows
that the board lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the
interference should be terminated.
Upon resumption of ex parte prosecution, the examiner
should treat the Sundararaman patent as an expired patent.
West may properly antedate the Sundararaman patent with a Rule
131 showing because the Sundararaman patent, as an "expired
patent," does not "claim" the same invention as West within the
meaning of Rule 131.
B. Order
Upon consideration of the record, it is
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007