Interference 103,579
“B” assuming invention “A” is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and
non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention “B”
assuming invention “B” is prior art with respect to
invention “A”.
Preliminarily, Visser argues both that none of its claims
designated as corresponding to the count is directed to the same
patentable invention as any of the claims of Hofvander’s involved
application which are designated as corresponding to the count
(Paper No. 17, p. 2, para. 2) and that none of its claims
designated as corresponding to the count is directed to the same
patentable invention as any of the claims of Hofvander’s U.S.
Patent 5,824,798 (Paper No. 141). If we are convinced by the
evidence of record that none of Visser’s claims designated as
corresponding to the count is directed to the same patentable
invention as any of the claims of Hofvander’s involved
application which are designated as corresponding to the count,
we shall conclude that Visser’s claims designated as
corresponding to the count not only are directed to a separate
patentable invention from the claims of Hofvander’s involved
application but prima facie are directed to a separate patentable
invention from method Claims 1-8 of the Hofvander patent which
Visser asks to be added to this interference pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.642 (Paper No. 141). If we are not convinced by Visser’s
motion, we shall independently consider Visser’s § 1.642 request
(Paper No. 141).
-25-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007