Ex Parte MCDONALD - Page 20





                Interference No. 104,544 Paper149                                                                                              
                McDonald v. Miyazaki Page 20                                                                                                   
                our judgment would be limited to involved claims. Miscellaneous motions are not, on                                            
                the face of the rule, so limited. Nevertheless, we read 35 U.S.C. 135(a), which provides                                       
                in part:                                                                                                                       
                        A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other                                                   
                        review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the                                            
                        claims involved in the patent....                                                                                      
                to limit the scope our judgment to claims designated as corresponding to a count.                                              
                        For the purposes of this proceeding, inequitable conduct before the United                                             
                States Patent and Trademark Office is defined in paragraph (a) of 37 C.F.R. § 1.56                                             
                [Rule 561.                                                                                                                     
       [62] The 1992 version of Rule 56 was in force during the prosecution of the McDonald                                                    
                666 patent.                                                                                                                    
                        The 1992 rule has since been slightly amended, but neither party has asserted a                                        
                reliance interest in the 1992 version of the rule as opposed to the existing rule. Under                                       
                Rule 56(a):                                                                                                                    
                        (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public                                         
                        interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs                                              
                        when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of                                             
                        and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability.                                              
                        Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent                                                 
                        application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office,                                            
                        which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to                                               
                        that individual to be matedal to patentability as defined in this section. The                                         
                        duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until                                           
                        the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application                                             
                        becomes abandoned. * * * However, no patent will be granted on an                                                      
                        application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or                                              
                        attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or                                                  
                        intentional misconduct. * * *                                                                                          
                Material to patentability is defined in Rule 56(b) as:                                                                         







Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007