Interference No. 103,036
1989), rev'd on other grounds, slip op. at 17 USPQ2d 1175 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1993). Whether the cited references constitute "prior" art
is not admitted by the party Tucholski. However, a review of the
party Tucholski's preliminary statement shows that it contains no
date of invention which antedates the dates of these references.
Thus, the references are prior art to the party Tucholski and the
party is not entitled to its claims corresponding to the count
based on the admission.
II
Insofar as the grounds A to E urge that the claims of
the party Wang et al. and the party Cataldi et al. are
unpatentable over prior art, the party Tucholski's opening brief
is dismissed.
In accordance with Interlocutory Order No. 9, pages 12
and 13, the grounds for unpatentability entitled to consideration
are those raised in motions by the junior parties Wang et al.,
Tucholski and Cataldi et al. attacking the right of the senior
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007