of Burg appear to be the same as (35 USC 102) or obvious (35
USC 103) in view of each other. However, since Davey has
disclaimed its claim 11 (along with dependent claims 12 to
14), it does not appear that at least one claim of Davey and
at least one claim of Burg define the same patentable
invention. All the remaining Davey claims contain the
limitation that the process defined therein be undertaken at
"at a relatively constant temperature and without serial
addition of reagents." No Burg claim contains this
limitation. There is insufficient evidence of record to
establish that one skilled in the art would have found it
obvious to modify any Burg claim to require that the process
defined in the claim be undertaken "at a relatively constant
temperature and without serial addition of reagents."
Accordingly, a judgment of no interference-in-fact is
appropriate.
C. Order
It is
ORDERED that joint preliminary motion 1 (Paper 16)
is GRANTED;
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007