Interference No. 103,169
III.
The Count
There appears to be a controversy between the parties regarding the expression
?imparting biaxial orientation” in the count (see step (iii)). Baars et al. argue that Chenevey
et al. never conceived of, or reduced to practice, a film having balanced biaxial orientation
as required by the Air Force contract. Chenevey et al. contend that the count does not
require balanced biaxial properties.
Absent any ambiguity, counts are to be given the broadest reasonable
interpretation which they can reasonably support. Lamont v. Berguer, 7 USPQ2d 1580,
1582 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); Fontijn v. Okamoto, 518 F.2d 610, 618, 186 USPQ 97,
104 (CCPA 1975). See also DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1321, 226 USPQ
758, 760-61 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We have reviewed the count and find that the language of
the count is not ambiguous.
9(...continued)
Force has in each of the applications. In response to the Board’s request, Chenevey et al.
filed a 37 C.F.R. § 1.602(b) notice indicating that the Air Force has an interest in U.S.
Patent 4,898,924, the involved Chenevey et al. patent (Paper No. 123); and Baars et al.
filed a statement indicating that the “...Government shall have a nonexclusive,
nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf
of the United States any Subject Invention through the world...” in the Baars et al.
application (Paper No. 124, page 2, referencing Small Business SBIR Contract No. F
33615-83-C5120 (BX S)). Since the parties’ involved cases are not assigned to the Air
Force, there is no basis for termination under
§ 1.602(a).
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007