Wednesday, December 05, 2007

In re Garner: substantial deference to USPTO interpretation of its rules

In Millman v. USPTO, the CAFC disposed of a failure to pay maintenance fee case.
Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606 was cited. The CAFC noted that on 12(b)(6) motions, the law of the regional circuit is applied, citing Phonometrics, 203 F.3d 790.

The In re Garner case involved an issue of priority. Interference rule 202 is discussed.

The CAFC cited Star Fruits, for an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.
393 F.3d 1277.

On reduction to practice, the CAFC cited Taskett v. Dentlinger, 154 F.3d 1321. The issue of corroboration of evidence arises.


Post a Comment

<< Home