Interference No. 103,169
(E) Baars et al. belated motion filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.633(a) and
1.635 for judgment that Chenevey et al. claims corresponding to the count
and the subject matter of the count are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, enablement requirement (Paper No. 83). The motion stands
opposed (Paper No. 87).
(F) Baars et al. second belated motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.633(a)
and 1.635 for judgment that Chenevey et al. claims are unpatentable for
inequitable conduct during the prosecution of their application and during the
interference (Paper No. 84). The motion stands opposed (Paper No. 88).
(G) Baars et al. third belated motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and
1.655(c) for judgment that Chenevey et al. claims corresponding to the count
and the subject matter of the count are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, enablement requirement (Paper No. 91). The motion
stands opposed and a reply was filed (Paper Nos. 99 and 103,
respectively).
(H) Baars et al. fourth belated motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and
1.655(c) for judgment that Chenevey et al. claims are unpatentable for
inequitable conduct during the prosecution of their application and during the
interference (Paper No. 93). The motion stands opposed and a reply was
filed (Paper Nos. 100 and 102, respectively).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007