Interference No. 103,534
with count 1. At that time, Owen was accorded senior party status on the basis of the December
6, 1991 filing date of prior U.S. application S.N. 07/803,036, now U.S. Patent 5,204,774 (‘774
patent).
Phillips filed three preliminary motions (Paper Nos. 9-11). At page 14 of its brief,
Phillips asserts that “In these motions, the Junior Party requested judgment on the grounds that
the Senior Party failed to provide an adequate written description that would support the
language of the count, failed to provide a written description that would enable one skilled in the
art to make and use the invention, and failed to provide the best mode for carrying out the
invention that was known at time that the application was filed.” On June 19, 1995, the
Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) granted a request of Owen for a testimony period within
which to take evidence with respect to these motions and deferred decision on the motions to
final hearing.
Owen took testimony with respect to the issues raised in Phillips’ motions; Phillips
took testimony in opposition thereto. Both parties filed briefs and appeared for oral argument at
final hearing.
Phillips’ Position
It is urged that the involved application is non-enabling because it fails to teach
one of ordinary skill in the art the requisite structural details (i) of the corrector lens assembly that
relate to lens prescriptions, e.g. radius of curvature and thickness, of the individual lenses
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007