Accordingly, the only issues before us is whether Green's
preliminary motion 2 to add Wang claims 7 and 12 to the
interference should be granted, and if so, whether those same
claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Jensen U.S. patent 5,649,956 (Green preliminary
motion 5).
In its preliminary motion 2, Green argues that Wang claims 7
and 12 should correspond to the count, since U.S. patent
5,807,378 (Jensen '378) teaches the features of Wang claims 7 and
12. In its preliminary motion 5, contingent upon the addition of
Wang claims 7 and 12, Green argues that Wang's claims 7 and 12
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Jensen U.S. patent 5,649,956 (Jensen 1956). Jensen 1378 and
Jensen '956 both have an effective filing date of 7 June 1995.
In its revised opposition, Wang seeks to antedate, under 37
CFR § 1.131, the Jensen 1956 and 1378 references as those
references apply to its claims 7 and 12. As such, Wang must
demonstrate that it reduced to practice the subject matter of its
claims 7 and 12 prior to 7 June 1995, or that it conceived prior
to 7,June 1995 coupled.-with due diligence from prior to 7 June
1995 to a subsequent feduction to practice. 37 CFR § 1.131(b).
Wang seeks to establish a prior date of conception coupled with
due diligence from prior to 7 June 1995 to its effective filing
date (Paper 100 at 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007