Van Engelen preliminaa motion 4
During oral argument, counsel for Van Engelen withdrew van Engelen preliminary
motion 4 from consideration (transcript at 84-85). Accordingly, van Engelen preliminary motion
4 is dismissed.
Van Engelen preliminga motion 6
Van Engelen has filed a preliminary motion under Rule 633(g), attacking the benefit
accorded Lee in the notice declaring interference. At the time the interference was declared, Lee
was accorded benefit of application 09/192,153 ('153 application), filed 12 November 1998, now
U.S. Patent 6,246,202, granted 12 June 2001 and application 08/416,558 ('558 application), filed
4 April 1995, now U.S. Patent 5,874,820, granted 23 February 1999.
Van Engelen argues that Lee is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the
Lee '558 application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 or 120. The '558 application incorporates by
reference, Lee application 08/221,375('375). Lee was not accorded priority benefit of the '375
application at the time the interference was declared. We note that Lee has moved to be accorded
priority benefit of its '375 application and that motion is addressed infra in connection with Lee
preliminary motion 4.
Van Engelen argues that the '558 application ineffectively incorporates by reference the
'375 application, or alternatively incorporates only a specific portion of the '375 application that
fails to describe certain ones of the claimed features in Lee claims 1-8. Alternatively, van
Engelen argues that neither the '375 application nor the '558 application, standing alone, provide
written description support for Lee claims 1 -8 (motion at 14).
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007