Interference No. 103,357
rules for testimony in response to an order to show cause.4
With respect to the issue of written description, the senior party argues that it was
wrong for the APJ to hold that there is no disclosure in Owen’s ‘875 application for the lens
elements being substantially afocal for wavelengths of light in a mid-region of a desired spectral
range as required by the claims corresponding to the count. Owen states that the ‘875
application discloses that the lens assemblies are achromatized for the colors green and yellow
and that these colors lie in the middle of the visible color spectrum, and thus the mid-region of a
spectral range. The senior party states that the ‘875 application also discloses that the optical
power of the lens assemblies is preferably 0, but may range from approximately -0.05 to +0.05,
thus providing support for the substantially afocal limitation specified in the claims
corresponding to the count.
Phillips’ Position
The junior party contends that the APJ properly denied the request of Owen for a
testimony period to introduce new evidence at final hearing because good cause was not
established by Owen in its request as to why a testimony period should be set. 37 CFR
§ 1.651(c)(4).
With respect to the issue of the senior party’s written description, Phillips contends
4 These cases are Okada v. Hitotsumachi, 16 USPQ2d 1789 (Com’r Pat. 1990) and Hanagan
v. Kimura, 16 USPQ2d 1791 (Com’r Pat. 1990).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007