BARKER V. ELSON et al. - Page 5




                 Interference No. 103,146                                                                                                               



                 abandoned in favor of continuation application Serial                                                                                  
                 No. 06/741,396, which itself was abandoned in favor of                                                                                 
                 continuation application Serial No. 06/786,999 filed on                                                                                
                 October 15, 1985.  The Elson et al.  application is assigned   4                                                                       
                 to Baxter International, Inc.                                                                                                          
                                   The Elson applications contain disclosure directed                                                                   
                 to two embodiments.  The embodiment of Figures 2 and 4 is                                                                              
                 directed to the subject matter of the count.  Claims directed                                                                          
                 to the embodiment in Figures 5 and 6, the so-called latex disk                                                                         
                 embodiment, were held to be unpatentable to Elson in an ex                                                                             
                 parte appeal to this Board in 1993.  With the filing of the                                                                            
                 involved Elson '999 application, Elson filed a preliminary                                                                             
                 amendment                                                                                                                              


                 containing claims 50-59 which were said to have been copied                                                                            
                 from the Barker patent for interference purposes.                                                                                      
                                   Both parties filed records and briefs.  The junior                                                                   
                 party filed a reply brief.  Counsel for both parties appeared                                                                          
                 at final hearing.                                                                                                                      

                          4Hereinafter, party Elson et al. will be referred to as                                                                       
                 Elson.                                                                                                                                 
                                                                           5                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007