Interference No. 103,036
for judgment, and its motion (Paper No. 660) to compel was
deferred to final hearing provided that the party Tucholski files
a paper within five days after final hearing requesting
consideration of the motions. Such a paper (Paper No. 794) was
filed. Accordingly, the following motions are also before us:
5. Whether the party Tucholski's miscellaneous motion under
37 CFR §§ 1.635 and 1.645(b) to file a belated motion for
judgment should be granted.
6. Whether the party Tucholski's second preliminary motion under
37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment that the parties' claims are
unpatentable should be granted.
7. Whether the party Tucholski's motion to compel should be
granted.
The senior party Burroughs et al.'s opening brief
raises the following issue with respect to the party Tucholski:
8. Whether the party Tucholski's claims corresponding to the
count are unpatentable over prior art.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007