Interference proceedings

The interference proceeding is declared by the patent examiner and occurs in the U.S. PTO. Once an interference is declared, a deterrnination is made as to the exact subject matter constituting the invention of the interference and who filed the first patent appHcation on that invention. The first appHcant becomes the senior party to the interference. The junior party has the burden of proving that it was prior in time as to its date of invention. 

A patentee or patent appHcant may win an interference proceeding by proving the right to the invention as the first inventor. Alternatively, a patentee or patent appHcant may win an interference proceeding by default. If the invention was known to the pubHc prior to the first date of invention, none of the parties to the interference have a right to claim the invention. 

For method tryout, run a control sample and two fortifications from each site. One fortification should be done at the LOQ and the other at the highest expected residue level, perhaps 1000 x LOQ. If the recoveries are within the acceptable range of 70-120% and there are no interferences, proceed with the method validation. If interferences are present which prevent quantitation of the analyte, try additional cleanup steps with SPE or use a more selective detection method such as liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS). 

From time to time, different persons invent the same subject matter and intend to protect it by patent rights. In these cases, two or more patent applications are filed by the inventors claiming substantially the same invention. Most countries in the world apply the first-to-file principle to determine who is entitled to the patent. In contrast, the United States do not give priority in case of conflict to the first applicant, but to the first to invent. Interference proceedings are instituted to determine who is the first inventor and consequently entitled to the patent (see 35 U.S.C. 102 g (1)). The parties involved in such a proceeding may provide evidence of facts to prove their date of invention. 

Competing Applications. For the EPO patent rights belong to the first to file. In the US it is the first to invent, decided by assessment in interference proceedings. Hence the importance of keeping accurate dated records of work leading to the invention, e.g. laboratory notebooks. 

Groblicki, P.J. Ang, C.C. "Measurement of H2O2 without Ozone Interference", Proceedings of the Symposium on Heterogeneous Processes in Source-Dominated Atmospheres, New York, 1985, 86-88. 

U.S. patent application may not control the outcome of the priority contest between parties who each actually reduced the invention to practice. As just noted, however, the party who files first has certain practical advantages in the interference proceedings. 

Interferences are long, costly, and complex procedures that are laden with procedural pit-falls for both the senior party and, especially, the junior party. The senior party is heavily favored to be awarded the right to a patent on the contested invention (149). Based on the advantage of the senior party in such interference proceedings, patent applications should be filed in the United States as quickly as possible to increase the probability of achieving senior status in any interference that may be declared. 

In two-party interference proceedings between fiscal years 1992 and 1994, the senior and junior parties prevailed in about 62 and 28%, respectively the remainder were split decisions. For proceedings decided by the Board, the senior and junior parties prevailed in about 5 3 and 32%, respectively again, the remainder were split decisions. Of the 673 two-party interferences during this period, about 21%pro-ceeded to a deeision by the Board. Calvert Sofoeleous, "Interferenee Statisties for Fiseal Years 1992 to 1994," 77 J. Pat. Trademark Off Soc. 417 (1995). 

Actual reduction to practice is not required for fihng a patent application. They only need to teach one skilled in the art how to make and use the invention. The bottom line is that so long as the paper examples are scientifically reasonable (that is, they do not offend the chemist s chemical sense), the PTO will consider them to have been performed. One caveat is that should an interference proceeding arise, it might be necessary to show that paper example compounds can really be produced as described, but again, the odds of an interference occurring are very low and good product yields wouldn t be required even then. 

Currently in the U.S., the first to invent, as determined in an interference proceeding, will get... 

The selectivity of enzyme electrodes can be improved by means of another coupling principle that is capable of filtering chemical signals by eliminating interferences of the enzyme or electrode reaction caused by constituents of the sample. Compounds that interfere with signal transduction, e.g., ascorbic acid with anodic oxidation of hydrogen peroxide, can be transformed into inert products by reaction with an eHminator or anti-interference enzyme (e.g., ascorbate oxidase). Since the conversion of analyte and interferent proceed in parallel, both the eliminator and the indicator enzyme may be co-im-mobilized in one membrane. On the other hand, constituents of the sample that are at the same time intermediates of coupled enzyme reactions can be eliminated before they reach the indicator enzyme layen For this purpose several different enzyme... 

---