Interference 103,815
On this record, senior party, TOREN FINKEL, RAUL J. GUZMAN, RONALD G.
CRYSTAL and STEPHEN E. EPSTEIN, is entitled to a patent containing claims 1-15,
17, 18 and 21 (see, Decision on Motion, Paper No. 102, p. 13).1
)
Andrew H. Metz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Pate, III )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Joan Ellis )
Administrative Patent Judge )
[by fax and first class mail]
1 The APJ granted Nabel’s preliminary motion 1 (Paper No. 42) for judgment on
the ground that Finkel et al.’s claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as being based on a specification that fails to provide an adequate
written description of the invention. Paper No. 102, pp. 13-14. Finkel did not (i) oppose
the motion in this regard, (ii) file a request for reconsideration of the APJ’s decision (37
C.F.R. § 1.640(c)), or (iii) request a review of the motion at final hearing (37 C.F.R. §
1.640(a)). Accordingly, the finding of the APJ stands unchallenged.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007