16. Wishing to have Han's views, an order (Paper 64)
was entered inviting Han to reply to Livak's response to the
order to show cause (Paper 61 ).
17. This time Han accepted the invitation and filed a
reply setting out its views (Paper 65).
B. Discussion
1. Introduction
The issue raised by (1) the order to show cause, (2) Livak's
response and (3) Han's reply is significant to the administration
of interference cases before the board.
We take this opportunity to explain in some detail why
we think it is appropriate, in this case, to exercise discretion
by declining to consider on the merits both (1) Livak Preliminary
Motion 1 and (2) Livak Miscellaneous Motion 1.
2. Need for interferences
Interferences exist for only two related reasons.
The first reason arises when the Director finds that two
applicants claim the same patentable invention. Since, the
United States has a first-to-invent system, the Director needs a
vehicle for determining which of the two applicants first made
the invention. The vehicle is an interference proceeding before
the board under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a). The interference proceeding
generally determines who is not entitled to a patent to claims
involved in the interference and the Director is then in a
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007