Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 23
d. Junior Party Davie’s motion under 37 CFR §§ 1.628 and 1.635 to amend their
preliminary statement (paper no. 55).
DISMISSED. This motion, and the two motions to follow, involve the question of
inventorship. These motions seek to change the parties listed on Davie’s preliminary
statement, the declaration of interference, and its interfering application, respectively,
from Davie, Ichinose, Seale, Holly and Parker to only Davie and Ichinose. It is our
understanding that these motions are a consequence of Davie becoming aware of a
mistake in assuming that the same co-applicants listed in the parent applications were
also co-inventors of the claimed subject matter in the interfering application.
Nevertheless, the question of inventorship does not affect our decision in this
interference. Irrespective who the inventors are, Davie has not made its case for priority
as to the subject matter of the count. The motions are therefore dismissed as moot.
However, upon return of the interfering application to the Technology Center, Davie may
raise the matter of inventorship with the primary examiner in charge.
e. Junior Party Davie’s motion under 37 CFR § 1.635 to reform the interference (paper
no. 56).
DISMISSED for the reasons above.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007