What you need to know about 37 CFR 1.2: vox audita perit
PatentHawk has a post "Twisted in the Wind" which includes the text:
A second petition had been made because examiner Corrielus issued an interview summary after the first revival denial that supported Jenski's position: the examiner did say he would issue a new office action. Charles Pearson, Director of the Office of Petitions, crafted a most ungenerous interpretation of 37 CFR §1.2.
The decision on the original decision dismissed Petitioner's request to withdraw the holding of abandonment, on the grounds that Petitioner's reliance on an oral promise is expressly prohibited by 37 C.F.R. §1.2. With the introduction of this oral understanding into the record via the interview summary, nothing has changed. This information was not placed into the record until more than six months after Petitioner's reliance. At the time of Petitioner's reliance, the understanding was a mere oral promise. This section of the C.F.R. expressly prohibits Petitioner's reliance on the oral understanding, and withdrawal of the holding of the abandonment based on an action which is in contravention to a regulation would be improper.
Director Pearson unmoved; application expired.
37 CFR §1.2 requires that all business with the patent office "should be transacted in writing. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt."
IPBiz notes-->
Vox audita perit, litera scripta manet
(The spoken word perishes, the written word remains)
A second petition had been made because examiner Corrielus issued an interview summary after the first revival denial that supported Jenski's position: the examiner did say he would issue a new office action. Charles Pearson, Director of the Office of Petitions, crafted a most ungenerous interpretation of 37 CFR §1.2.
The decision on the original decision dismissed Petitioner's request to withdraw the holding of abandonment, on the grounds that Petitioner's reliance on an oral promise is expressly prohibited by 37 C.F.R. §1.2. With the introduction of this oral understanding into the record via the interview summary, nothing has changed. This information was not placed into the record until more than six months after Petitioner's reliance. At the time of Petitioner's reliance, the understanding was a mere oral promise. This section of the C.F.R. expressly prohibits Petitioner's reliance on the oral understanding, and withdrawal of the holding of the abandonment based on an action which is in contravention to a regulation would be improper.
Director Pearson unmoved; application expired.
37 CFR §1.2 requires that all business with the patent office "should be transacted in writing. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt."
IPBiz notes-->
Vox audita perit, litera scripta manet
(The spoken word perishes, the written word remains)
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:07 AM
1 Comments:
But was there actual debate about the examiner's promise/representation, or was it acknowledged? If acknowledged, then the rule doesn't really apply.
Post a Comment
<< Home