which presumably would make it harder for Han to obtain a patent.
We decline both invitations.
A. Findings of fact
1. There came a time when the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office ("Director"), through the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences ("board"), was of "the opinion"
that claims 102-108 of Han application 09/069,847 "would
interfere" with claims 1, 3, 14 and 24 of Livak patent
5,538,848.1
2. Accordingly, an interference was declared between
Han and Livak.2
3. As declared, the interference involved a single
count.
4. The Han application contains claims 66-100 and
102-108. Only Han claims 102-108 were designated as
corresponding to the count and therefore were "involved" in
the interference within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 135(a).
5. The Livak patent contains claims 1-24. Only Livak
claims 1, 3, 14 and 24 were designated as corresponding to the
count and therefore were involved in the interference.
6. At the time it was initially declared, one
possible outcome of the interference was that Livak claims 1, 3,
1 "Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of
the Director, would interfere *** with any unexpired patent, an interference
may be declared ***." 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) ( bold added).
2 An interference is declared on behalf of the Director at the board by
an administrative patent judge. 37 CFR § 1.610(a).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007