Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
by each count and must state on behalf of the
inventor the facts required by paragraph (a) of §§
1.623, 1.624, and 1.625 as may be appropriate. . . .
Thus, the established precedent focusing on the effect of
assertions of invention dates and not concerned with
identification of inventorship are not apposite.
Cragg argues:
Rule 629, entitled “Effect of preliminary
statement,” is the only rule that addresses the
consequences for allegations made in a preliminary
statement, such consequences being limited to dates
and issues of proving priority. Importantly, Rule
629 was amended at the same time Rule 622 was
amended (in 1984) to require identification of
inventors in a preliminary statement, but the
amendment did not create an admission as to
inventorship. Rule 629(a) states:
A party shall be held to any date alleged
in the preliminary statement. Doubts as to
definiteness or sufficiency of any
allegation in a preliminary statement . . .
will be resolved against the party filing
the statement by restricting the party to
its effective date or the latest date of a
period alleged in the preliminary
statement. (Emphasis in original).
But again, this rule focuses on the effect of assertions as to
a date of invention. It is concerned with ambiguities or
indefiniteness in the assertion of a date of invention, and is
not concerned with anything about the naming of inventors.
The rule gives notice of something not so plain and obvious,
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007