Interference No. 104,436 Paper 98
Shyamala v. Hillman Page 18
Hillman's priori1y case
[129] Hillman rests on its accorded constructive reduction to practice, 26 December 1996, which is the
filing date of its involved patent (Paper 79).
[1301 The notice (Paper 79) announcing Hillman's intent to rest on its accorded constructive reduction
to practice was filed during the priority phase of the interference.
[131] Hillman's benefit date isthe filing date of Hillman's 08n74,169 application, which issued as
Hillman's 332 patent.
[132] Hillman's involved 306 application is a divisional application of Hillman's 169 application.
[1331 The administrative patent judge administering the interference set times for filing preliminary
motions (Paper 19).
[134] A preliminary motion may be filed to attack accorded benefit. 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(g).
[135] Shyamala did not file a motion attacking Hillman's entitlement to its accorded benefit.
[136] Shyamala did not file a motion for judgment that Hillman's involved claims are unpatentable for
lack of support under 35 U.S.C. 112[l].
[137] Shyamala would now like to attack Hillman's accorded benefit [Paper 89 at 30].
[1381 Shyamala already had its opportunity to attack Hillman's accorded benefit.
[139] Shyamala correctly notýs that the specifications of Hillman's involved application and patent are
identical [Paper 89 at 30].
[140] The involved Hillman application has the benefit of the Hillman patent, which issued from the
involved app lication's parent. In short, Hillman's accorded benefit date is the filing date of the
involved Hillman patent.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007