IL 153040 and IL 152812 were abandoned. The Applicant, a Mr. Baruch Cohen, claims that he was in a psychiatric ward and could not deal with the prosecution, and this was the reason for the applications going abandoned.
IL 152812 was submitted on 13 November 2002 and deemed abandoned on 4 August 2008 and IL 153040 was submitted on 24 November 2002 and deemed abandoned on 26 May 2008.
Under section 21a of the Law, the Commissioner has the discretion to reconsider abandoned Applications within 12 months of abandonment. Section 164 of the Law gives the Commissioner discretion to extend this period if adequate cause to do so is presented.
The request to reopen the applications was submitted on 16 January 2019 which was eleven years after the cases were closed.IL 151537 had issued, but the renewal fee had not been paid. The request to reopen this case has been considered in the past, on 16 September 2013, on 20 August 2018, on 22 August 2018 and on 13 September 2019. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner considers the issue closed and is not prepared to revisit it a fifth time.
The Applicant and his legal representative appeared before the Deputy Commissioner for a hearing. During the hearing the hospitalization periods of the applicant were presented.
It transpired that there were a number a periods of hospitalization, but they were not continuous or regular and there is no reason to extend the statutory period for reconsideration under Section 21a of the Law by TEN years. During this period the Applicant was corpus mentis, or at least was not hospitalized and could, therefore, have dealt with the cases.
Even if there is justification to consider the health of the Applicant, the passage of time increases the reliance of the public on the Application being abandoned and it is not acceptable for the case to suddenly appear after such a long period.
Furthermore, in 2013, the Applicant requested for the issued and abandoned case to be reinstated and did not see fit to req2uest this abandoned case to be reopened. When queried about this in the hearing, he did not have an explanation for this omission, but did know that the case had closed.
Furthermore, it was claimed at the hearing that the Applicant and his representative were interested to know why the cases had closed, and which communications from the Patent Office that had not been responded to. In here ruling o 16 April 2019,, the Applicant was told that the files were destroyed as over seven years had passed since they had gone abandoned. This is in accordance with the regulations relating to archiving government materials 1988. The Applicant and his representative were given an opportunity to submit further documentation but failed to do so.
In the circumstance the request is rejected.
IL 153040 and 152812 to Baruch Cohen, Ruling by Ms Jacqueline Bracha 21 May 2019