37 C.F.R. § 1.560

Interviews in ex parte reexamination proceedings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Interviews in ex parte reexamination proceedings pending before the Office between examiners and the owners of such patents or their attorneys or agents of record must be conducted in the Office at such times, within Office hours, as the respective examiners may designate. Interviews will not be permitted at any other time or place without the authority of the Director. Interviews for the discussion of the patentability of claims in patents involved in ex parte reexamination proceedings will not be conducted prior to the first official action. Interviews should be arranged in advance. Requests that reexamination requesters participate in interviews with examiners will not be granted.

(b) In every instance of an interview with an examiner in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the patent owner. An interview does not remove the necessity for response to Office actions as specified in § 1.111. Patent owner's response to an outstanding Office action after the interview does not remove the necessity for filing the written statement. The written statement must be filed as a separate part of a response to an Office action outstanding at the time of the interview, or as a separate paper within one month from the date of the interview, whichever is later.

[65 FR 76777, Dec. 7, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1989–2011 · leading case: Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “2 In its petition, Syntex alleged that: (1) the PTO conducted telephone interviews with Alfa before the first Office Action, contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 1.560 (a) (1988); (2) Alfa failed to file, or to serve on Syntex, summaries of the interviews as required by 37 C.”

Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 738 (W.D. Va. 2011). “550 and Written Statement of Examiner Interview Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.560 (b), at 12 (Nov. 30, 2009) (“Pl.”

Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 709 (W.D. Va. 2010). “550 and Written Statement of Examiner Interview Under 37 CFR § 1.560 (b), at 12-13 (Nov. 30, 2009) [hereinafter “PL’s Amendment”] (alterations in original).”

Emerson Elec. Co. v. Davoil, Inc., 911 F. Supp. 380 (E.D. Mo. 1996). “" While Blaese and Chambers allow certain limited participation by non-parties in the document-submission phase of a reexamination proceeding, the same rationale does not apply to 37 C.F.R. § 1.560 's prohibition against participation of third parties in PTO interviews.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.