Interference No. 103,987
matter under section 112, first paragraph. The second part of
Lim’s showing is that it has understandably taken the courts
and the bar some time to come to recognize the true
significance of the analysis as set forth in Gentry. This
period of time, the argument goes, should excuse the junior
party’s delay in filing the motion for judgment.
In the second part of this opinion, we do not find
it necessary to decide whether Gentry is a substantive
departure in the law regarding the written description
requirement, since we are of the view that the facts in this
interference and the Gentry case, as explained hereinbelow,
are entirely different. Therefore, if we assume for the4
purpose of the motion under 37 CFR § 1.645 that Gentry did
effect a substantive change in the law, is some period of
4 Additionally, it is apparent that the Federal
Circuit is taking pains to emphasize that Gentry fits within
the legal framework of the existing law on descriptive
support. See Reiffen v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 098-1502,
decided June 5, 2000, wherein the majority opinion discusses
written description with respect to prior case law, and the
concurring opinion carefully places Gentry in the context of
this law.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007