Interference No. 104,190
electrode that provides the support for the insulating and
cutting layers. The Rydell patent is the prior art
distinguished by the examiner’s amendment, as discussed above.
Inasmuch as the Rydell patent was determined to be patentably
distinct from the claimed subject matter of the Parins
application by the examiner at the time of allowance of the
Parins application, any work on the Rydell invention would not
be reflected in the Parins application. Work on the invention
claimed in the Rydell patent, thus, does not excuse some of
the delay in filing the Parins application.
The other evidence argued by the junior party is
merely several tries and missteps at arriving at a commercial
scissors acceptable to surgeons that could be marketed at a
suitable cost.
Not only is this evidence lacking in relevance to the subject
matter at issue, it is almost entirely directed at commercial
activities. Activities aimed at commercialization, even if
relevant to the subject matter in interference, do not provide
an excuse for delay. Id.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007