Interference No. 104,241
for accepting their supplemental evidence, we simply note that
Jeon et al.'s arguments and underlying reasoning simply do not
represent the relevant law. In the first instance, Jeon et
al. misunderstand the role of the primary examiner in
reviewing the original showing under 37 C.F.R § 1.608(b).
When a showing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) is required before
declaring an interference, the initial review of the showing
is performed by the primary examiner. The primary examiner's
review is solely to ensure that a basis for judgment is
alleged and to ensure the requisite parts required by the rule
are submitted. Subsequently, assuming the primary examiner
determines the filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b)
have been fulfilled, it is the APJ, in the exercise of his
interlocutory authority, who rules on the adequacy of the
showing. See Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d at 1035, 13 USPQ2d at
1319 wherein the court noted that:
the sole role of the primary examiner was to
determine whether Hahn alleged a basis for priority
over Wong, not to determine whether Hahn had made a
prima facie showing of such priority. 37 C.F.R.
§1.608(b). Cf. M.P.E.P. §2308.02, last paragraph.
Only the examiner-in-chief could make the latter
determination and decide whether the interference
should go forward.
See also M.P.E.P. § 2308.02, pages 2300-21 and 2300-22. If
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007