Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
12. No Stice claims are patentable. (Paper 80 at 40, 43.)
Benefit
13. Stice was not accorded priority benefit of the filing
date of any prior application (Paper 81 at 3).
14. Campbell was accorded priority benefit of the following
three applications for all three counts of the interference
(Paper 81 at 3):
US application 08/803,165, filed 19 February 1997,
and issued as patent 6,252,133 on 26 June 2001;
PCT application PCT/GB96/02098, filed
30 August 1996; and
GB application 9517779.6, filed 31 August 1995.
15. The parties continue to rely on their original priority
statements. (Paper 83 (Campbell); Paper 84 (Stice).)
Arguments
16. Stice filed a principal brief on priority (Paper 92),
which Campbell opposed (Paper 104); Stice filed a reply
(Paper 106).
17. Stice subsequently filed a corrected brief (Paper 115)
pursuant to an Order (Paper 112) to renumber its exhibits
consecutively.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007