Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
U.S.C. § 135(b) yields an incidental benefit to potentially
opposing applicants. The statutory section does not restrict
or limit who may benefit from application of the bar, as it
only precludes the presentation of a claim. Note that 35
U.S.C. § 135(b) has been upheld as an applicable ground of
rejection in ex parte prosecution before the USPTO. In re
McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 43 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Fogarty would have us read into 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)
language that is not there, to turn it into a bar against
having certain types of interferences instead of simply a bar
on the presentation of certain claims as it so plainly reads.
We decline to so distort or add to the statutory language. In
our
- 59 -
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007