No. 97-1491 DECIDED: December 9, 1998 Appealed from Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Michael F. Borun, Marshall, O'Toole, Gerstein, Murray Borun, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Li-Hsien Rin-Laures. Of counsel on the brief were Lawrence M. Lavin, Jr., Monsanto Company, of Saint Louis, Missouri; and Charles L. Gholz and Alton D. Rollins, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier Neustadt, of Arlington, Virginia. Brett S. Sylvester

Patent Appeal No. 8169. June 26, 1969. Rehearing Denied September 18, 1969. Stowell Stowell, Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. Harold T. Stowell, Albert Tockman, A. Donald Messenheimer, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Chisholm Spencer, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee. Oscar L. Spencer, William S. Britt, Pittsburgh, Pa., Conrad Christel, Buffalo, N.Y., George R. Jones, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, HOLTZOFF and McLAUGHLIN, Judges, sitting by designation

Patent Appeal No. 8791. February 15, 1973. Robert R. Keegan, Darby Darby, New York City, Frances D. Thomas, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorneys of record, for appellant. W.H. MacAllister, Paul M. Coble, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Appeal from the Board of Interference Examiners United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding Hellwarth, the junior party

Patent Appeal No. 7074. January 23, 1964. James W. Dent, Washington, D.C., and Albert L. Jacobs, New York City, for appellants. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Washington, D.C. (Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellees. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences which awarded priority of invention to senior party Jacob et al. in Interference No. 89,320. That interference

In this chapter, "net tax supported debt" of the state means the principal amount of any bonds, notes (excluding revenue anticipation or other temporary notes payable no later than one year from their dates), loans, leases in excess of 5 years or other evidence of indebtedness, excluding refinanced debt, which has been authorized but not yet repaid or otherwise cancelled, for whatever period or purpose incurred, for which debt service payments are either: I. Made directly by the state from taxes

The registrar shall have an official seal which shall be like the seal of the state except that the device thereon shall be surrounded by the words "New Hampshire Department of State, Registrar of Vital Records" in the place of the words "Seal of the State of New Hampshire, 1776." RSA 5-C:6 2005, 268:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

(a)Interfering subject matter. An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. (b)Notice of declaration. An administrative patent judge declares the patent interference on behalf of the Director. A notice declaring an interference identifies: (1) The interfering subject matter; (2) The involved applications, patents, and claims; (3) The accorded benefit

In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

(a)Applicant. An applicant, including a reissue applicant, may suggest an interference with another application or a patent. The suggestion must: (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference, (2) Identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, propose one or more counts, and show how the claims correspond to one or more counts, (3) For each count, provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding

(a)Priority - (1)Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party. (2)Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and

(a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal