Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
reissue application claims 31-35 are allowable. Dance has not
explained why the interference was not "properly declared" in
accordance with Perkins and why Seifert's alleged failure to
comply with 35 U.S.C. § 251, if proved (it has not been),
should lead to a different result on the jurisdiction issue
than was reached in Gartside and Guinn. 7
For the foregoing reasons, we remain of the view
that Seifert's failure to comply with the requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 251, if proved, would result in the entry of judgment
against Seifert's reissue claims for unpatentability on that
ground rather than a holding that we lack subject matter
jurisdiction over the interference.
D. Dance's "new matter" argument
At pages 40-47 of the Decision, we rejected Dance's
argument that the omission from Seifert's reissue claims of
the extension wire limitations recited in the original patent
claims constitutes "new matter" in contravention of the 35
U.S.C. § 251 (Dance's opening brief at 15). We treated this
See also Gustavsson v. Valentini, 25 USPQ2d 1401, 1406-077
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991), wherein the Board rejected
Gustavsson's argument that Valentini's admitted failure to comply
with 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) rendered the interference void ab initio.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007