Interference No. 103,036
With respect to issue (11), the Burroughs et al. brief
no. 4 requests that we decide whether judgment under 37 CFR
§ 1.662(b) should be issued against the party Cataldi et al. for
filing a second reissue application which cancels all of its
patent claims 1 to 29 which correspond to the count and which
asserts that the newly added reissue claims 30 to 44 are
patentably distinct from the original patent claims.
Since we are issuing judgment against the party Cataldi
et al. for the failure of its preliminary statement to overcome
the filing date of the senior party Burroughs et al., the party
Cataldi et al.'s patent claims 1 to 29 and its reissue claims 9
to 13, 18 to 22, 28 to 32, 35, 37, and 39 are considered
unpatentable. Since the party Cataldi et al. is not entitled to
its claims corresponding to the count pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(g), it is not necessary for us to decide whether the claims
are also unpatentable over prior art or under 37 CFR § 1.662(b).
Accordingly, the issues raised in these briefs are dismissed as
moot.
JUDGMENT
Judgment with respect to the subject matter of the
count in issue is hereby entered against Richard T. Cataldi,
Patrick D. Hein, Henry J. Heirigs and John C. Leo, the junior
party. Accordingly, on the present record, the party Cataldi et
-70-
Page: Previous 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007