Ex Parte Skulnick - Page 9




              Interference No. 105,125                                                                                        
              Chaffee v. Skulnick                                                                                             
              more than three months after the filing date of a senior party patentee to make a prima facie                   
              showing that demonstrates that the junior party is entitled to a judgment relative to the patentee is           
              discussed in Kistler v. Weber, 412 F.2d 280, 285, 162 USPQ 214, 218-219 (CCPA 1969). In                         
              Kistler v. Weber, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals dismissed junior party's argument                     
              that then Rule 228 (parallel to Rule 617) and then Rule 204(c) (parallel to Rule 608(b)) place an               
              undue burden on the junior party or are contrary to the rights of the first inventor. ThcCCPA                   
              stated that:                                                                                                    
                     The expense involved in a protracted interference, and the special hardships workable on                 
                     a patentee involved therein, are notorious, and to minimize both, where possible, would                  
                     appear to be the laudable purpose of these rules. Kistler v. Weber, 412 F.2d 280, 285,                   
                     162 USPQ 214, 218-219 (CCPA 1969).                                                                       

                     Further, a junior party applicant who fails to demonstrate a prima facie showing under                   
              Rule 608(b) may file additional evidence only under very limited circumstances. 37 CFR                          
              § 1.617(b). The policy behind Rule 617(b) is articulated in the Notice of Final Rule, Patent                    
              Interference Proceedings, 49 Fed. Reg. 48416, 48423 (Dec. 12, 1984) as follows:                                 
                     The "good cause" showing required by § 1.617(b) imposes a stricter standard than was                     
                     required under the prior rules. The stricter standard is necessary to encourage applicants               
                     copying claims from a patent to better prepare their initial showings under § 1.608(b).                  
                     Under current practice, the Board of Patent Interferences has found that substantial time                
                     is lost in issuing orders to show cause based on an inadequate initial showing only to                   
                     have an adequate showing made with the response to the order to show cause. Under the                    
                     "good cause" standard, ignorance by a party or counsel of the provisions of the rules or                 
                     the substantive requirements of the law would not constitute good cause.                                 
              See also, Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028,13 USPQ2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1989).                                          




                                                             9                                                                







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007