Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Cragg has offered no reason why the above-quoted analysis is
erroneous. Here, we add the following observations.
Having benefit to the 9/27/94 filing date of application
08/312,881 means Cragg’s involved application is deemed to
have been filed not on the actual filing date of June 5, 1995,
but on September 27, 1994. That brings Cragg’s involved
application much closer in time, by approximately 8 months, to
any foreign application with respect to which it desires to be
accorded benefit. With that shortening of the time gap, it is
easier to satisfy the “within twelve months” time requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 119. It does not mean Cragg’s involved
application stands in the shoes or otherwise takes the place
of the earlier filed domestic application. Benefit is still
considered from the perspective of the claims or counts at
issue in Cragg’s involved application. Whether application
08/312,881 is entitled to benefit with respect to any claim
contained therein is irrelevant, not at issue, and has not
been determined in this proceeding. We are concerned with the
claims of Cragg’s involved application and the count in this
interference. Fogarty is also correct in stating (Opp. Brief
at 8):
Cragg’s further argument on page 24 that 35 USC §
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007