Ex Parte ROLLINS et al - Page 11


                   Appeal No. 2001-0869                                                                 Page 11                       
                   Application No. 08/453,347                                                                                         

                           Deckler arose out of “an interference proceeding . . . between Deckler and                                 
                   Grataloup, . . . [in which] the Board awarded priority of invention to Grataloup.”                                 
                   Id. at 1451, 24 USPQ2d at 1448.  Deckler’s application was returned to ex parte                                    
                   prosecution, rejected on various grounds, and appealed.  See id.  “The Board                                       
                   affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 7 on the ground that                                   
                   the decision in the interference precluded Deckler from allowance of those                                         
                   claims, because they define the same invention as the interference count.”  Id.                                    
                   Deckler appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the court affirmed, holding that                                      
                           [t]he Board’s decision that the interference judgment bars Deckler                                         
                           from obtaining a patent for claims that are patentably                                                     
                           indistinguishable from the claim on which Deckler lost the                                                 
                           interference constituted a permissible application of settled                                              
                           principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.  Under those                                           
                           principles, a judgment in an action precludes relitigation of claims or                                    
                           issues that were or could have been raised in that proceeding.                                             
                   Id. at 1452, 24 USPQ2d at 1449.  The court concluded that                                                          
                           [t]he interference judgment conclusively determined that, as                                               
                           between Deckler and Grataloup, Grataloup was entitled to claim the                                         
                           patentable subject matter defined in the interference count.  It is                                        
                           therefore proper, and consistent with the policies of finality and                                         
                           repose embodied in the doctrines of res judicata and collateral                                            
                           estoppel, to use that judgment as a basis for rejection of claims to                                       
                           the same patentable invention.                                                                             
                   Id.                                                                                                                
                           In this case, interference 103,998 involved Appellants’ U.S. Patent                                        
                   5,179,078 and application 07/330,446, filed by Yoshimura et al.  The sole count                                    
                   in the interference read as follows:  “A method of treating neoplasms or tumors in                                 

                                                                                                                                      
                   be estopped with respect to any claims which correspond, or properly could have corresponded,                      
                   to a count as to which that party was awarded a favorable judgment.”  37 CFR § 1.658(c).                           





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007