Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 6
Morel moves pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(f) for benefit for the purpose of priority of
the January 28, 1993 filing date of French Application No. 93 01258 (Paper 13).
Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(f), when considered in light of the
evidence relied upon in support of the motion, establishes a sufficient basis for granting
Morel benefit of the January 28, 1993 filing date of French Application No. 93 01258 for
the purpose of priority. Further, Sekhar does not oppose Morel preliminary motion under
37 CFR § 1.633(f).
Therefore, Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(f) is granted.
IV. Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(4)
Morel moves to redefine the interfering subject matter pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.633(c)(4) by designating Morel claims 2 and 5 as not corresponding to Count 1 (Paper
12). Sekhar opposes (Paper 22). Morel does not reply.
Rule 637(c)(4)(ii) requires that a motion seeking to designate a claim as not
corresponding to a count shall
Show that the claim does not define the same patentable invention as
any other claim whose designation in the notice declaring the interference as
corresponding to the count the party does not dispute.
Rule 601(n) states
Invention “A” is the same patentable invention as an invention “B”
when invention “A” is the same as (35 U.S.C. § 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C.
§ 103) in view of invention “B” assuming invention “B” is prior art with respect
to invention “A”.
20. The invention of Morel claim 1 is a coating composition containing zirconium
diboride and colloidal silica in any amounts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007