Interference No. 103,169
(I) Baars et al. motion to suppress Chenevey et al. Exhibits 5-13, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 23, 24-28, 30(a), 31, 32, 33, and 37-42 and the related
testimony corresponding to these exhibits (Paper No. 110). The motion
stands opposed and a reply was filed (Paper Nos. 114 and 112,
respectively).
The following issues have not been raised by the parties in their briefs:
(1) a question of separate patentability of any claim(s); and
(2) the Chenevey et al. motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and 1.628 to amend
their preliminary statement (Paper No. 62).5
We note that Chenevey et al. raise an additional issue in their brief (page 23); that
is, that Baars et al. are not entitled to a patent because Baars et al. did not invent the
subject matter of the count. We give no consideration to this issue. Chenevey
et al. did not raise this issue by motion and, thus, it cannot be raised at final hearing. See
37 C.F.R. § 1.655.
Both parties filed briefs and appeared through counsel at final hearing. The
Chenevey et al. record consists of the testimony of the Chenevey et al. inventors, Edward
Chenevey and Edward Kafchinski; the Baars et al. inventors, Dirk Baars and Richard
Lusignea; and corroborators, Guy Berry, a consultant for Foster-Miller(FM),
5 Matters not raised in the brief are ordinarily regarded as abandoned. Photis v.
Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007