by Steve Driskill | Nov 20, 2015 | [sub] interference, PTO Procedure
An applicant’s prosecution strategy does not bar claims provoking an interference that are otherwise permissible under § 135(b)(1). Here, for example, claims copied from another patent before the critical date in § 135(b)(1) but then canceled and only added-back five...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 11, 2012 | [sub] interference, PTO Procedure
Outside of the interference context, the court seems to suggest that an applicant can rely on § 120 priority in interpreting almost any statutory provision unless it is otherwise clear that the actual filing date is the one at issue. Background / Facts: 35 USC §...
