Message: Trial will commence before this Court on October 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
1 - The order set forth a new errant standard under 37 C.f.R ,42,(b) for waiving a requirement in direct contradiction to prior board precedent.
( two of those factors are directly contrary to prior board precedent)
2 - The order errantly construes the statutory requirement of service of a petition under 35 USC 312 (a) (5)
( Mr Handal is not designated representative of patent owner , rather the undersigned (Robert Purcell) as the sole representative of patent owner to represent it before USPTO, is the sole designated representative
of the patent owner under 312 (A) (5).
Here the petition was provided to neither patent owner nor the designated representative , even if applied.
The petition failed to satisfy 35 USC 312 (a) (5) . The petition was and remains incomplete , and no filing date may be accorded.
CONCLUSION
The patent owner pray that the board not only deny the petition filing date , but also dismiss the petition.
Respectfully
Robert Purcell
17 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply