Interference No. 104,818
Page No. 3
as between Sullivan and Bingel, leaving only certain potential patentability questions.
In light of Sullivan's concession on priority, this interference is terminated at a very early
stage in the proceedings.'
11. Sullivan's Preliminary Motions and Recommendation for the Examiner
Sullivan has filed two preliminary motions under 37 C.F.R. §1.633(a) alleging that
Bingel's involved claims, i.e., 2 and 4-12, are unpatentable. (Sullivan Revised Preliminary
Motion 1, Paper No. 66 and Sullivan Preliminary Motion 2, Paper No. 53). The issues raised by
Sullivan's two preliminary motions relate to patentability and the technical issues raised therein
are particularly well suited for an examiner's review and consideration.
Based upon the facts presented in this interference, and as Bingel's involved claims are
present in a pending U.S. application, a determination as to the patentability of Bingel's claims is
best resolved by the examiner. For example, the panel notes that the technology in question
relates to metallocene catalyst synthesis, a highly technical field that has not been fully explained
on this limited record. Thus, the Board exercises its discretion' and recommends that the
examiner of Bingel's involved U.S. Application No. 09/508,057 consider the issues raised in
Sullivan's preliminary motions.
'As the February 17, 2003 date set for opposing these motions has not yet come to pass,
no Bingel opposition to these motions has been received by the Board. Furthermore, no cross
examination testimony or replies have been filed with the Board.
'37 C.F.R. § 1.659(c) provides that:
The Board may make any other recommendation to the examiner or Commissioner as
may be appropriate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007