Ex Parte HILLMAN - Page 24




                Interference No. 104,436 Paper98                                                                                         
                Shyamala v. Hillman Page 24                                                                                              
                        Hillman's earliest constructive reduction to practice is the filing of the application that                      
                issued as Hillman's involved patent. The disclosures of both Hillman's involved application and                          
                patent are substantially the same. The count includes two of Hillman's claims. Consequently, if                          
                Hillman had support for the Hillman claims comprising the count, it is unlikely that ShyamaIa                            
                could have successfully attacked Hillman's accorded benefit." Note that Hillman did not file a                           
                preliminary motion attacking Hillman's support for the claims comprising the count.                                      
                        Shyamala now contends that it has not had an opportunity to attack Hillman's accorded                            
                benefit. That contention is simply untrue. Shyamala contends that it is unprecedented for                                
                Shyamala to be deprived of a chance to "reply" to Hillman's priority case. The converse is true.                         
                It would be unprecedented for Shyamala to reply to a notice from Hillman stating that it is not                          
                putting on a priority case. Hillman has alleged nothing to which Shyamala could reasonably                               
                expect to reply.                                                                                                         
                        Shyamala alleges a procedural irregularity and points to 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a), which                             
                forbids an attack on priority in the form of a preliminary motion. This argument overlooks the                           
                express authorization to attack accorded benefit in 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(g). The point of the                               
                preliminary motions period is to establish the count and the accorded benefit to simplify the                            
                proofs of priority required in the priority phase of the interference. If a party could put on a full                    
                priority case in the preliminary motions, it would frustrate the purpose of preliminary motions in                       
                most cases. The exception, however, is accorded benefit, which is simply another name for the                            
                earliest constructive reduction to practice in the form of a patent filing with a chain of continuity                    

                        is Hillman only needs a single described and enabled embodiment within the scope of the count. Weil v. Fri       
                572 F.2d 856, 866 n.17,196 USPQ 600,608 n.17 (CCPA 1978).                                                                






Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007