granting of a patent to Han. The Han application provides no
basis for holding Livak's claims unpatentable. Thus, if there is
some basis for rejecting claims in the Han application, and even
if one assumes that Han somehow overcomes any rejection, the
Livak patent cannot again be held hostage to events which might
occur in any future ex parte prosecution of the Han application.
Prompt issuance of patents to patentable inventions is
consistent with the public interest. In re Pritchard, 481 F.2d
1359, 179 USPQ 103 (CCPA 1972) (there is an obvious public
interest in unnecessary postponement of the beginning of the
running of the term of a patent resulting from an application in
interference proceedings). Issuing a patent to Han as soon as
possible assuming that Han, in fact, is entitled to a patent
would therefore be in the public interest. There is no apparent
reason, on the facts before us, why we should delay the day when
ex parte prosecution of the Han application resumes just to let
Livak oppose a grant of a patent to Han with respect to an
invention which is not the same patentable invention as that
claimed by Livak. We note that prompt action in terminating
interferences, at least in the future, may obviate the need to
grant patent term extension to patents resulting from examination
of applications involved in interference. Lastly, we observe
that Han no longer wants to be involved in the interference.
Having been told that its claims do not interfere-in-fact with
Livak claims, there is no apparent reason why Han should have to
continue to pay the higher expenses involved in inter partes
- 26 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007