Interference No. 104,312
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Before SCHAFER, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judg .
Introduction
This is a decision on the issue of priority. As will be explained below, junior party Sauer
has failed to demonstrate priority of invention. On even date herewith, in a separate paper, we
are granting Sauer's motion 20 forjudgment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) against the sole claim,
claim 8, of senior party Kanzaki corresponding to the count. Entry ofjudgment against both
parties is now appropriate.
Findings of Fac
I . Eight related interferences, including this one, were declared on February 16, 2000,
Interference Nos. 104,311 through 104,316 and 104,496 and 104,497.
2. The same Kanzaki application 08/818,964, is involved in each of the eight related
interferences.
3. The involved Kanzaki application contains eight essentially copied claims 7-14, one
from each of eight different issued patents of junior party Sauer.
4. Each of Sauer's eight different patents is involved in a separate interference with the
same Kanzaki application.
5. In this interference, claim 8 is the only Kanzaki claim which corresponds to the
count, and the corresponding copied Sauer claim, claim 1, is the only Sauer claim which
corresponds to the count.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007