Interference No. 105,055 Paper48
Wang v. Murakawa Page 2
exist between all the pending claims in Murakawa's application, i.e., Murakawa claims
34-35, 38-39, 42-44 and 46-47, and various claims of the Wang patents (Paper 1). All
of Murakawa's claims were held to be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) by the 1993
Wang U.S. Patent 5,219,727 (Paper 36). Murakawa was given the opportunity to cure
its § 135(b) problem by filing a motion to add one (1) claim that interferes with the
claimed subject matter of Wang patents 5,219,727 and 5,476,774 and is not time
barred by § 135(b) (Paper 37). Murakawa filed Murakawa Preliminary Motion I (Paper
38) to add proposed claim 50. We have denied this motion (Paper 47). Thus, the only
pending claims in Murakawa's involved application, i.e., Murakawa claims 34-35, 38-39,
42-44 and 46-47, are unpatentable under § 135(b)(1). Section 135(b) was enacted to
be "a statute of repose ... a statute of limitations, so to speak, on interferences so that
the patentee might be more secure in his property right." Corbett v. Chisholm, 568 F.2d
759, 765, 196 USPQ 337, 342 (CCPA 1977). See also, In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236,
1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Noting that § 135(b) acts as a statute of
limitation or repose); Berman v. Housey, 291 F.3d 1345, 1348, 63 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Both the plain language of that provision and the relevant legislative
history make clear that it [§ 135(b)] was intended to be a statute of repose, limiting the
time during which an interference may be declared 'so that the patentee might be more
secure in his property right"', citing Corbett, 568 F.2d at 765, 196 USPQ at 342.)
Continuation of this interference under the circumstances of this case would be contrary
to the purpose of § 135(b) to act as a statute of limitation or repose. We, therefore,
enter judgment against Murakawa.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007