Interference No. 105,113
The 1 June 1998 filing date of the provisional application predates the 1 November 1998
conception date alleged in Cheung's preliminary statement.16 Preliminary Motion 1 is therefore
dismissed as moot with respect to Ritzdorf's '783 application, filed 4 February 1998.
Because Cheung's preliminary statement fails to allege a date of invention prior to the
1 June 1998 benefit date of Ritzdorf's provisional application, judgment on the issue of priority is
being entered against Cheung's involved claims and in favor of Ritzdorf's claims in the
accompanying "Judgment -- Rule 640."17
E. Summary
In the accompanying "Judgment -- Rule 640," judgment being entered (a) against
Cheung's involved claims 1-5 and 10-14 on the ground that Ritzdorf has prevailed on the issue of
16 Paper No. 29.
17 Judgment on priority is being entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.640 because it rests on the
failure of Cheung's preliminary statement to allege date of invention prior to Ritzdorf's
1 June 1998 benefit date, a ground for judgment given in § 1.640(d)(3). Issuance of a show
cause order under § 1.640 is unnecessary, however, since the question of Ritzdorf's benefit has
been argued at an oral hearing and is the subject of this panel decision.
- 30 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007