Interference No. 103,036
Issue (2)
The party Cataldi et al.'s opening brief requests that
we decide the party Cataldi et al.'s motion no. 1, which urges
that the party Burroughs et al.'s patent claims 1 to 11 and
reissue claims 13 to 32, 34 to 36 and 38 to 51 should be
designated as not corresponding to the count. The motion is
dismissed as being inconsistent with the position taken by the
party Cataldi et al. earlier in this proceeding.
On December 30, 1992, this interference was declared
between the Wang et al. application and the Cataldi et al.
patent. Thereafter, the interference was redeclared on
August 19, 1994, by adding the Tucholski application, the Cataldi
et al. reissue application and the Burroughs et al. reissue
application, the Burroughs et al. patent not being involved in
the proceeding. After the redeclaration of the interference,
counsel for the party Cataldi et al. initiated a telephone
conference call with both Judge Ronald H. Smith, the APJ then in
charge of the interference, and counsel for the party Burroughs
et al. During the conference call, counsel for the party Cataldi
et al. requested that the Burroughs et al. patent be added to
this interference, because both the Cataldi et al. reissue
-11-
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007