Interference No. 102,802
(2) Wu's motion under 37 CFR § 1.635 for leave to file a
belated motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)/35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
(Paper No. 94). Opposition filed by Shiokawa (Paper No. 97).
Reply (Paper No. 100).
(3) Wu's belated motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)/35
U.S.C.
§ 102(f) (Paper No. 95). Opposition filed by Shiokawa (Paper
No. 98). Reply (Paper No. 101).
At the time senior party Shiokawa filed its request for
judgment and junior party Wu joined in that request, a case
and controversy no longer existed in this interference.
Therefore, Shiokawa's subsequently filed motion under 37 CFR §
1.634 did not fairly place the issue of inventorship in the
interference where the sole matter remaining in this
proceeding was the ministerial act of entering judgment.
Compare Schulze v. Green, 136 F.3d 786, 790, 45 USPQ2d 1769,
1773 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (motion under 37 CFR § 1.634 filed with
preliminary statements "fairly placed the issue of the
inventorship of Appellants' application in the interference").
For this reason, the above-identified motions are dismissed as
untimely filed and the following judgment is hereby entered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007