0
at Reel 009029, Frame 0054. Parce's involved application is said to be is a continuation of
Application 09/250,029 which is said to be a continuation of Application 08/671,987. The
assignment of the subject matter of a parent application is considered to be the assignment of the
commonly disclosed subject matter of continuing applications. MPEP § 306.
The interference rules provide that in the absence of good cause, an interference will not be
declared or continued between a commonly assigned application and unexpired patent:
§ 1.602 Interest in applications and patents involved in an
interference.
(a) Unless good cause is shown, an interference shall not be declared or
continued between (1) applications owned by a single party or (2)
applications and an unexpired patent owned by a single party.
Since the involved application and patent were commonly assigned prior to the declaration, this
interference was improvidently declared. The parties may treat the effect of the declaration as a
nullity.
IT IS ORDERED that this interference be terminated without judgment.
Richard E. Schafer
Administrative Patent Judge
Date: Czllęd3
Arlington, VA
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007