ROSENQUIST v. SCHOLL et al - Page 18




               Patent Interference No. 103,812                                                                                  

                                                              VI.                                                               
                      For the reasons set forth above, junior party Rosenquist has failed to establish, by a                    
               preponderance of the evidence, an actual reduction to practice of an invention within the scope                  
               of Count 2 prior to senior party Scholl's effective filing date.                                                 
                        Junior party Rosenquist's motion to substitute Count 2 with proposed Count A                            
                      During the preliminary motions period, Rosenquist filed a motion to substitute proposed                   
               Count A for Count 1.  The motion was denied in an Order mailed February 18, 1998.  See Paper                     
               No. 31, pp. 3-4.  In that same Order, the interference was redeclared to substitute Count 2 for                  
               Count 1.  See Paper No. 31, pp. 4-5.  At final hearing, Rosenquist argues that the motion to                     
               substitute proposed Count A for Count 1, now Count 2, should be granted if Rosenquist's proofs                   
               are insufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice of Count 2.  See RB, pp. 15-16.                    
                      Rosenquist's motion was denied for the following reasons (Paper No. 31, pp. 3-4):                         
                              Count 2 (which is substituted for Count 1 of the interference as declared)                        
                      consists of subject matter, recited in the alternative, of all the claims of both                         
                      parties which have been designated as being involved in the interference, i.e.,                           
                      which correspond to the "count."  In the priority phase of the interference, proof                        
                      of priority by Rosenquist of a species within the scope of any claim designated as                        
                      corresponding to the "count" should be sufficient for Rosenquist to prevail on the                        
                      issue of priority.  No need is seen for a phantom count including any subject                             
                      matter not embraced by a claim designated as corresponding to the count.  The                             
                      statute (35 U.S.C. § 135(a)) does not mention a count.  Rather, the statute refers to                     
                      the claims "involved" in the interference.  The count mentioned in the rules has                          
                      been, and will continue to be, an alternative recitation of the subject matter of all                     
                      claims involved (to use the words of the statute) in the interference (i.e., those                        
                      designated to correspond to the count (to use the words of the rules)). [Emphasis                         
                      added.]                                                                                                   



                                                              18                                                                





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007