Patent Interference No. 103,548
claim 29 and Lagrange reissue claims 1-21, 24-26 and 29 as corresponding to the
counts (see infra). Lagrange is entitled to a patent containing those claims designated
as not corresponding to a count; currently that means Lagrange patent and reissue
claims 22-23 and Lagrange reissue claims 30-34 - although Konrad challenges this (see
infra).
Claims 1-21, 24-28 of Lagrange U.S. Patent 5,178,637
There is no challenge to the designation of Lagrange patent claims 7-8 as
corresponding to Count 1, Lagrange patent claims 1-6, 24-25, 27-28 as corresponding
to Count 2, and Lagrange patent claims 9-21 and 26 as corresponding to Count 3. No
motion has been filed to redefine the interfering subject matter to designate Lagrange
patent claims 1-21, 24-28 as not corresponding to a count. Accordingly, given that
Konrad prevails on priority with respect to the counts, we hold Lagrange is not entitled
to a patent containing any of Lagrange patent claims 1-21 and 24-28 corresponding to
the counts.
Claim 29 of Lagrange U.S. Patent 5,178,637 and Claims 1-21, 24-26 and 29 Lagrange
Reissue Application 08/676,491
Lagrange challenges the designation of Lagrange patent claim 29 and Lagrange
reissue claims 1-21, 24-26 and 29 as corresponding to the counts. Lagrange moves
under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(4) to redefine the interfering subject matter by designating:
· Lagrange patent claim 29 to not correspond to Count 2;
See Lagrange Preliminary Motion 2 20 (paper no. 24) [LPM2] .
20 Lagrange incorrectly moves under § 1.633(b) for judgment on the ground that there is no interference-
in-fact. According to the Rule, "A motion under this paragraph is proper only if ... no claim of a party which
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007