Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
is not unfair if, as it is here, all pertinent information
were known, Cragg would not be entitled, under the law, to
those earlier filing dates. Cragg had ample opportunity to
show that the information it had first given was a mistake but
failed to make a successful showing.
When 35 U.S.C. § 116 was amended in 1984 to permit co-
inventors to be jointly listed as inventors without all of
them having contributed to each and every claim in an
application, a corresponding change was made in 35 U.S.C. §
120 (relating to benefit to the earlier filing date of
previously filed United States applications) to require not
identity but merely an overlap of inventor(s) between the
application seeking benefit and the earlier filed application.
The change to 35 U.S.C. § 120 was necessary because additional
or non-overlapping inventors may be present due to the
inclusion of claims drawn to different subject matter. No
such change was necessary, however, with respect to the
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 119 that the person who has filed
for a patent on an invention (here the invention of the count)
must have previously regularly filed for a patent on the same
invention in a foreign country, whether it is through legal
representatives or assigns. Indeed, no change was made. The
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007