The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper 24
Filed by: Interference Trial Section Merits Panel
Box Interference Filed:
Washington, D.C. 20231 November 20, 2001
Tel: 703-308-9797
Fax: 703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
DEBABRATA MUKHERJEE
and CLIFFORD M. KAUFMANN,
Junior Party
(Application 08/872,927),
v.
STEVEN D. KLOOS,
Senior Party,
(Patent 5,759,639).
_______________
Patent Interference No. 104,665
_______________
Before: SCHAFER, TORCZON and GARDNER-LANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Murkherjee, the junior party, did not file a preliminary statement or any preliminary motions.
In a telephone conversation with paralegal specialist Yolunda Townes on November 6, 2001, counsel
for Mukherjee stated that no additional papers would be filed. Mukherjee is, therefore, restricted
to the effective filing date of its application. Because it did not file a preliminary statement,
Mukherjee is not permitted to prove that it made the invention prior to its filing date (37 CFR §
1.629(c)(2)(i)) or to present a case-in-chief (37CFR § 1.651(c)(2)). Since Mukherjee did not file
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007