Interference No. 104,646 Paper139
SKB (Johnson) v. Rasmusson, now Rasmusson v. SK13 Page 6
§ 6(b) (patentability and priority determined by panels of at least three). Rasmusson
promptly sought reconsideration of the decision (Paper 127). SKB's views on
Rasmusson's request for reconsideration were also "heard" (Paper 133). A decision on
reconsideration was issued (Papers 135 and 136).
C. no other issues necessary to resolve the interference exist
Neither Rasmusson nor SKB have been able to identify any other issue which
remains to be resolved in this interference.
d. under these circumstances, this action is final for purposes of
judicial review
To the extent that current practice may be interpreted as requiring a final hearing
with briefing for purposes of "finality," we deem the hearing on motions to be that "final
hearing" and note that matters to be addressed at final hearing (37 CFR § 1.658(a))
have been addressed already. Therefore, we merge our prior decisions on motions
(Papers 29, 60, 100, 122, 135 and 136) into a "final" decision.
The proceeding is not being prematurely interrupted. Rather, termination of the
interference at this point is consistent with securing "the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination" of the interference by avoiding needlessly subjecting the parties to
redundant and unnecessary expenditures of time, effort and money. 37 CFR § 1.601.
Indeed, there are no issues remaining for us to decide. In other words, the necessary
factual background has been fully developed and the Board has exercised its discretion
and applied its expertise. Going forward with a final briefing and final hearing where
nothing new is being added and priority is not being determined does not improve the
efficiency of the administrative process and needlessly expends the resources of the
parties and the Board. Moreover, Rasmusson's request for reconsideration has
1.655(a)), but the panel that will conduct the review generally will be the same panel that
entered the interlocutory order even if other issues at final hearing are determined by a
separate panel. Accordingly, the most efficient way to seek review of an interlocutory
order entered by a panel is through a request for reconsideration.
20.2.2 Number of requests
No more than one request for reconsideration may be filed per party per board
decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007