Hi all.
A couple of people had mentioned being bounced from the Neptune server, but
I had not received any bounce messages, so we ran a diagnostic on the
system.
The Majordomo system is stored on a server called Neptune, and the server
encountered an error while trying to create a log file. This led to a few
messages bouncing while the server tried to sort itself out.
The problem has now been rectified and we apologise for any inconvenience
caused.
Rob Vince
Web Developer
Thomson Derwent
-----Original Message-----
From: Zimmermann, Roy [mailto:roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com]
Sent: 31 October 2002 04:26
To: simmons.es@pg.com; piug-l@derwent.co.uk
Subject: RE: Fastest Source for US Patent Interference Adverse Decisions
Yes, Edlyn. In fact, the Neptune address drowned my initial posting about
where to find interference information most rapidly. Can the Derwent
email admin comment on the address & its significance for the functionality
of the PIUG-L discussion list? I got a series of bounced messages from
that address, even though I hadn't addressed to it. What gives?
-----Original Message-----
From: simmons.es@pg.com [mailto:simmons.es@pg.com]
Sent: Mon 10/28/2002 1:42 PM
To: piug-l@derwent.co.uk
Cc:
Subject: Re: Fastest Source for US Patent Interference Adverse
Decisions
This reply never made it to the discussion list. It bounced from a
very strange
address, piug-l@neptune.derwent.co.uk, not the usual list address.
Has anyone
else noticed postings that tried to go there?
Edlyn
---------------------- Forwarded by Edlyn Simmons-ES/PGI on
10/28/2002 02:40 PM
---------------------------
From: Edlyn Simmons-ES on 10/27/2002 03:36 PM
Edlyn Simmons-ES To: "Zimmermann, Roy"
<roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com>
10/27/2002 03:36 PM Subject: Re: Fastest Source for US
Patent
Interference Adverse Decisions
(Document
link: Edlyn Simmons-ES)
Roy,
If memory serves, the PTO announces only adverse decisions in
interferences,
those that change the status of an already granted patent. It does
not make
public any information about interferences between two pending
applications or
interferences won by the granted patents. This is consistent with
the general
policy of not publishing any information about pending applications,
a policy
that is not quite right for applications that have been published
before grant.
Also, if memory serves, interference files are kept separate from
prosecution
files. If you were to order a file wrapper from the USPTO, you'd
probably see a
paper that mentioned the declaration of an interference, but you
wouldn't get
the papers that related to the actual interference procedings.
Those might be
available from the Board of Appeals and Interferences, especially if
you have
the interference number. I suspect that the file location is the
best
information you're going to get.
Edlyn Simmons
Internet Mail Message
Received from host: [193.123.78.40]
[193.123.78.40]
From: "Zimmermann, Roy" <roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com> on 10/25/2002
10:46 PM
GMT
"Zimmermann, Roy" To: piug-l@derwent.co.uk
<roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com> Cc: (bcc: Edlyn
Simmons-ES/PGI)
Subject: Fastest Source for
US Patent
Interference Adverse
Decisions
10/25/2002 06:46 PM
Well, as the hunt progresses, I'm reminded that "fastest" is a
relative term.
Presuming that Claims Post-Issuance database would be the most
efficient spot to
commence, I started there, found nothing to confirm the presence of
an
interference, let alone a decision. I browsed the eOG Notices,
along with the
OG Notices on Micropatent, from April-Oct 22, 2002, and found only 3
reports of
Adverse Decisions in Interferences reported in the OG during that
nearly 7month
time span. No one notice contained more than a handful of
decisions, most one
or two. Thus, I can only conclude the handling of interferences
at the PTO is
not proceeding as rapidly as the PTO's plans to gut its classified
hardcopy
search files.
Finally, as some respondents suggested, I inquired at the PTO PAIR
site. The
only noteworthy point found there is the Location of the files,
viz., Board of
Appeals & Interferences Clerks. The summary listing of the File
Contents
History states nothing regarding interference proceedings. Like
many choice
rumors, confirming interference proceedings and outcomes seems to be
difficult
to pin down. Anyone from the PTO reading PIUG-L care to suggest
an
appropriate alternative to any of the above sources of information
on US
interferences?
Roy Zimmermann
Principal Patent Information Specialist
763-505-2527 763-505-2530 (Fax)
roy.zimmermann@medtronic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email is confidential and intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication
is strictly prohibited. Thomson Scientific will accept no
responsibility
or liability in respect to this email other than to the addressee.
If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately via email: postmaster@derwent.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:57:15 GMT