Interference No. 105,028
Holbrooks’ Status
This interference was provoked by Holbrooks based upon claims which have been held
not to be supported by a written description. Holbrooks has not filed a motion under 37 CFR
§ 1.633(c)(2) pursuant to § 1.633(i) to add claims to the Holbrooks application that were both
supported by the Holbrooks application and interfere with Bacchi’s claims. Holbrooks was
provided an opportunity to file such a responsive motion. See Paper 17, page 8, Time Period 2.
Under the circumstances of this case, Holbrooks lacks standing to prosecute this interference.
The proceedings of an interference are to be conducted “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every interference.” 37 CFR § 1.601. It would be inconsistent
with this goal to continue an interference where the provoking party does not have written
descriptive support for that party’s involved claims. It is, therefore, appropriate to terminate the
interference with a final judgment at this time.
Judgment
It is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the count is herein entered against
junior party Orville Holbrooks;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party Orville Holbrooks is not entitled to his
application claims 17-23, 26 and 27 which correspond to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the count is herein
entered for senior party Paul Bacchi and Paul S. Filipski;
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007