Re: Re: Re: US Examination

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Examination

Comments:
: : : : 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) : I had a recent situation where the examiner spectifically suggested that the party would be left to the choice of starting an interference. : 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)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

Do not disclose any details of any patent idea. See a lawyer.
Before you post a message you must agree to the Terms of Use.