Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
brief, as specified in § 1.656(h). This is not altered by the
fact that Seifert's brief, which was filed after Dance's
opening brief, contains the offer to submit a Bookstein
declaration.
C. Dance's jurisdictional argument
At pages 33-35 of the Decision, we rejected Dance's
alternative argument that his belated motion to strike the
initial Seifert, Downey, and Shank reissue declarations should
be considered because "it goes fundamentally to the Patent and
Trademark Office jurisdiction with respect to this
interference. But for the existence of the reissue proceeding
which party Dance has now demonstrated was defectively
granted, the Patent and Trademark Office had no subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate this interference." (Motion at 5.)6
Dance does not take issue with our holding that we
have jurisdiction over the interference if it was "properly
declared" under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a), in support of which
Although not noted in the Decision, we should point out6
that Dance's reasons for making this jurisdictional argument are
unclear; if we lack jurisdiction over this interference, we also
lack the authority to enter judgment against Seifert's reissue
claims for unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007