Interference No. 103,272
The briefs raise the following issues:
1. Whether the subject matter of count 2 is unpatentable to either party over prior art, as
urged by the party Okamoto.
2. Whether count 1 should be reinstated, as urged by the party Okamoto.
3. Whether the party Heuschen has established priority of invention.
4. Whether the party Heuschen's belated preliminary motion (Paper No. 60) for judgment
under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) based on lack of candor on the part of the party Okamoto should
be considered. If the motion is considered, whether the motion should be granted.
5. Whether the party Okamoto's belated preliminary motion (Paper Nos. 44 and 48) for
judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) based on the failure of the Heuschen application to
disclose its best mode should be considered. If the motion is considered, whether the
motion should be granted.
6. Whether the Heuschen application lacks an enabling disclosure, as urged by the party
Okamoto.
In addition, the following opposed motions to suppress were filed:
7. Motion to suppress certain evidence, filed by the party Heuschen (Paper No. 118).
8. Motion to suppress certain evidence, filed by the party Okamoto (Paper No. 120).
Issue (5) concerns whether the party Heuschen's application fails to disclose
its best mode with respect to (i) the specific process of pH equilibration used in making
the para-cumyl phenol endcapped polycarbonate resin of the count and (ii) certain aspects
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007