Putnam v. Knudsen
Interference No. 104,383
which it is stated: “Junior Party Allen Putnam hereby
abandons the invention which is the subject matter of the
Count in the foregoing interference [104,383].” The paper is
treated as a request for entry of adverse judgment under 37
CFR § 1.662(a).
In the same paper, the junior party provided certain
information relating to an alleged on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), and requested that the Board render a ruling that
the claims of neither the junior party nor the senior party
are patentable over the alleged on-sale activity. The request
is not accompanied by any substantive analysis directed to the
features of the involved claims and thus cannot reasonably be
regarded as a motion for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a). If
it were a motion for judgment filed under 37 CFR § 1.633(a),
it would have been summarily denied as to Knudsen’s claims
even without need of any opposition from senior party Knudsen.
Thus, we regard the request as mere invitation for the Board
to analyze the supplied information and determine, on the
Board’s own initiative, whether the claims are patentable. In
our view, such examination is better left to be performed by
an examiner, in the first instance.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007