Interference No. 104,241
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.607, Jeon et al. requested that
an interference be declared with Cupps et al. and made their
presentation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) to the primary
examiner on May 11, 1998 (see paper Number 10 in Jeon et al.'s
involved application). The primary examiner, in the
performance of his duties, determined that Jeon et al.'s
showing alleged a basis upon which Jeon et al. would be
entitled to judgment relative to Cupps et al. and forwarded
the parties' respective involved application and patent and
benefit applications to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (the Board) for a determination by an examiner-
in-chief on the sufficiency of the showing and an ultimate3
determination of whether or not the interference should go
forward.
In Paper Number 2 of this proceeding, the APJ, in the
performance of his interlocutory duties, determined that Jeon
et al.'s showing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) failed to show
that Jeon et al. were prima facie entitled to judgment
3
Examiners-in-chief (35 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 7) are also known as
Administrative Patent Judges (APJ's). See the Commissioner's Notice dated
October 15, 1993, appearing in 1156 O.G. 32, November 9, 1993.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007