Re: Re: US Examination

Posted by David on March 29, 2002 at 15:49:33:

In Reply to: Re: US Examination posted by M Arthur Auslander on March 29, 2002 at 08:10:06:

: : If Company A has an earlier priority date to company B and the technology is without question the same then why would an examiner allow both patents in the US of company A and B bearing in mind company A has an earlier priority date?

: Dear David,
: You may be starting with legal or factual conclusions that are wrong. The examiner may not be aware. The examiner may feel that an interference is the way of settling the problem.

: That is why there are lawyers and that is why they make money too, if they have the clients to pay.

Arthur,
If the examiner doesnt call interference then what? He/She allows patents of the same technology through knowing full well that there will be problems down the road. I guess someone should in this instance instigate a third party interference proceeding and get to issues of "proof of concept" dont you think?
: M. Arthur Auslander

: Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law Since 1909
: 505 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
: 212-594-6900, fax 212-244-0028, aus@auslander.com
: ELAINE's Workshop®
: E arly L egal A dvice I s N ot E xpensive(sm)

Follow Ups:

• Re: Re: Re: US Examination M Arthur Auslander 22:20:28 3/29/02 (5)
  • Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination David 03:33:34 3/30/02 (4)
    • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination M Arthur Auslander 03:58:04 3/30/02 (3)
      • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination David 14:52:08 3/31/02 (2)
        • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination M Arthur Auslander 22:06:04 3/31/02 (0)
        • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination M 21:59:39 3/31/02 (0)

Post a Followup