Comments from Charles L. Gholz

NAME:               Charles L. Gholz
COMPANY:            OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCMELLAND, MAIER, & NEUSTADT, P.C.
                    ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ADDR-1:             FOURTH FLOOR
                    1755 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
CITY, STATE ZIP:    ARLINGTON, VA  22202
TELEPHONE:          (703)413-3000
FAX:                (703)413-2220
REPRESENT:          UNCLEAR

 -------
 001-0001.TXT

(1) I do not understand the use of the word "proposed" in line 17 of
column 2 of 59 FR 63957. It is my understanding that the legislation
adding 35 USC 154(b)(1) has been passed.

 -------
 001-0002.TXT

(2) The word "appeal" in line 25 of column 2 of 49 FR 63957 is
incorrect. A 35 USC 146 action is equivalent to a 35 USC 141 appeal
for this purpose, but it is not an appeal.

 -------
 001-0003.TXT

(3) Because an action under 35 USC 146 is not an appeal, draft 37 CFR
1.701(a)(3) should be changed to insert -- review -- after "or" in
line 2, so that the introductory phrase will read -- Appellate review
by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or review by a
federal court under 35 U.S.C. 141 or 145,...."

 -------
 001-0004.TXT

(4) The phrase ", if any," in draft 37 CFR 1.701(c)(1)(i) and (ii) is
unnecessarY.

 -------
 001-0005.TXT

(5) The phrase "was declared or redeclared" in draft 37 CFR
1.701(c)(1)(i) should be changed to -- was first declared --. Suppose
that A is an applicant, that an interference is first declared as A
vs. B, and that it is later redeclared as A vs. B vs. C. The period
of extension should be counted from the date that the interference
was declared as A vs. B, not from the date that it was redeclared as
A vs. B vs. C. That result can be achieved by reciting that the
extension period begins "on the date that the interference was first
declared to involve...[A] in the interference.... 

Last Modified: March 1995