Interference No. 104,818
Page No. 4
In the last decade, Congress has introduced patent term adjustments for time spent in an
interference. The current version, codified at 35 U.S.C. §154(b)(1)(C), provides for a day-for
day extension of the applicant's term. In contrast, during ex parte prosecution there is a three
year period for the examiner to complete prosecution and there are automatic limits on the time
that the applicant has to act. 35U.S.C.§154(b)(1)(B)and(b)(2)(C). Consequently, man
interference in which the patentability issues have not been fully developed, once the core issue
of priority has been resolved, there is little justification in continuing the interference to develop
fully issues that can be administered more efficiently in an examination. 37CFR§1.601(a)
provides that interferences are to be resolved in a "just, speedy an inexpensive" manner. In
having the examiner review the patentability issues presented in Sullivan's motions, the Board is
mindful of the need to avoid unnecessarily continuing a § I 35(a) interference proceeding where
the question of priority no longer exists.
Additionally, the panel notes that if Sullivan desires, Sullivan may file a protest under 37
C.F.R. § 1.291 against Bingel's application.
111. Bingel's Preliminary Motions
Bingel has two pending preliminary motions. Bingel Preliminary Motion I (Paper No.
56) requests judgment against Sullivan claims 10 through 16 of Sullivan's U.S. Patent No.
6,015,916. Bingel Preliminary Motion 2 (Paper No. 57) requests judgment against claim I of
SullivaD's U.S. Patent No. 6,455,719.
Sullivan has conceded priority as to Count 2. Judgment is entered against all the claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007