claim 144 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, T 1, for lack of
written description support. Green's preliminary motion 4 to add
claims to its application was denied. Since Green lacked
standing to remain in the interference, the remaining preliminary
motions were dismissed. Green was ordered to show cause why
judgment should not be entered against Green, and that the
response be in the form of a request for reconsideration (Paper
76 at 28).
On 30 April 2002 Green filed a request for reconsideration
of the decision on preliminary motions (Paper 79). Although Wang
was authorized to file an opposition to Green's request for
reconsideration and Green was authorized to file a reply to any
opposition filed by Green (Paper 76 at 29), parties Wang and
Green were informed on 6 May 2002 that the parties need not file
an opposition or reply.
For the reasons that follow, Green's request for
reconsideration of our decision on preliminary motions is denied.
B. Decision
At the heart of Green's request for reconsideration is
Green's assertion that.,(l) Wang only raised the issue of
enablement and did not-,ýr aise the issue of written description
support with respect to Green's claimed "end effector" and (2)
the board sua sponte decided, under 37 CFR § 1.641 (a), whether
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007