Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[patentingguy]

I have been looking for a list of appealable and petitionable matters, but no luck.    I have situation where we attempted to swear behind a reference using a 131 dec.  The examiner said it was not persuasive due to a very short gap in time in the sequence of events we listed.  The client (in house attorney) wants this appealed and I am thinking this is a matter for petition, not appeal, but am not sure.  I look at the BPAI opinions nearly every day and don't recall ever having seen someone appeal an examiner's determination as to the sufficiency of a 131 dec. 

[JustAnotherExaminer]

It's an appeal issue.

[khazzah]

I have been looking for a list of appealable and petitionable matters, but no luck.    I have situation where we attempted to swear behind a reference using a 131 dec.  The examiner said it was not persuasive due to a very short gap in time in the sequence of events we listed.  The client (in house attorney) wants this appealed and I am thinking this is a matter for petition, not appeal, but am not sure.  I look at the BPAI opinions nearly every day and don't recall ever having seen someone appeal an examiner's determination as to the sufficiency of a 131 dec. 

Appeal, not petition.

The BPAI regularly evaluates whether or not a 1.131 is sufficient to swear behind a reference, and in doing so makes findings on conception + diligence or actual RTP.

I have a number of blog posts discussing BPAI decisions on 1.131 declarations. This post focuses on due diligence:
http://allthingspros.blogspot.com/2010/04/due-diligence-in-swear-behind.html

[Robert K S]

Very short time gap or very long time gap?

[patentingguy]

Thanks all.  I am reading over your blog post now, Karen - thanks.