Interference No. 103,036
"label" and the "label with an integral voltmeter." For this
reason, we find the testimony of Dr. Powers to be credible where
he urges that the battery indicator device which is carried on
strip 12 constitutes a label. Accordingly, the motion is denied
with respect to this limitation.
In item 10, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
"thermochromic inks," "thermochromic tapes," and "crystalline
materials" limitations of reissue claims 41 and 48. The motion
relies upon the testimony of Dr. Feder at CR 70 to 72, who
testified that Burroughs et al.'s specification does not disclose
or suggest thermochromic inks or thermochromic tapes and using
thermochromic ink in a voltage indicator device. Dr. Feder
testified that the specification discloses using liquid
crystalline materials not in an indicator device 10D but in
embodiments that use voltage sensitive liquid indicator material
and that have the indicator chamber, cell, or bubble that is used
to hold the voltage sensitive liquid indicator material. The
motion is denied.
We agree with the party Burroughs et al.'s opposition
brief, pages 144 and 145, that the Burroughs et al. specification
has sufficient written description for the foregoing limitations.
Burroughs et al., column 6, lines 56 and 57, broadly disclose
-56-
Page: Previous 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007