From:     Paul.Morgan@usa.xerox.com
Sent:     Thursday, 25 March 1999 10:33
To:  Interference Rules
Cc:  RGreen@BrinksHofer.com; CGHOLZ@OBLON.COM; AZupcic@FCHS.com;
mkirk@aipla.org; Stoner, Bruce; THEZ7658@MLB.COM
Subject:  Comment on 3/16 Rule 655(a) Amendments - 64 FR 12900

     This is a purely personal public comment, per the PTO 3/16/99
published request for comments on a 37 CFR 1.655(a) amendment.

       This appears to me to be an excellent and desirable rule
clarification. 
  
     It is respectfully suggested that the published rule change language
here as to "modifying" an interlocutory order further suggests an
additional, related, desirable change within in the same rule language,
namely, to change "the party ATTACKING the order" to  --the party seeking
the particular modification--.  

     There are two suggested reasons for this language suggestion.
First, that it is not unheard of for more than one party to seek to
differently modify, or to modify different parts of, the same interlocutory
order.  E.g., disputes over appropriate count language, or appropriate
additions or removals of various different claims to be held subject to the
interference.  In such cases obviously the respective burdens at final
hearings should be on the respective parties seeking the respective
modifications, which the above language, or some version thereof, would
accommodate.   Secondly, the present word "ATTACKING" [as compared to, e.g.,
the more appropriate word "challenging"] is not the most desirable word to
suggest or associate with desirable attorney conduct. 

          A Respectfully Submitted Purely Personal Suggestion,

               Paul F. Morgan