(2) Sever failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
the alleged communication to Glickman’s attorney of the
invention was corroborated;
(3) the date of the alleged communication of the
invention to Glickman’s attorney was apparently prior
to the conception.
8. In response to the Order to Show Cause, Sever submits no
new evidence.
C. Discussion
Rule 608(b)
Rule 608(b) was codified to protect a senior party patentee
from the expense and hardships of an interference. In order to
proceed with an interference, the junior party applicant must
show that it is prima facie entitled to judgment relative to the
senior party patentee.
The purpose of Rules 608(b) and 617 were discussed in
Kistler v. Weber, 412 F.2d 280, 285, 162 USPQ 214, 218-219 (CCPA
1969). In Kistler v. Weber, the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals rejected junior party’s argument that then Rule 228
(predecessor of Rule 617) and then Rule 204(c) (predecessor of
Rule 608(b)) place an undue burden on the junior party or are
contrary to the rights of the first inventor. The CCPA stated
that:
[t]he expense involved in a protracted interference, and the
special hardships workable on a patentee involved therein,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007