Interference No. 103,224
those matters are regarded as abandoned. Photis v. Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1984).
No issue of interference-in-fact has been raised in this proceeding.
Preliminary Matter
We take note of Skutnik's filing of a § 1.635 motion for sanctions on Nov. 17, 1995 (Paper
No. 44), to which Hashimoto has filed an opposition (Paper No. 42). The motion for
sanctions is summarily dismissed as failing to comply with the mandatory requirements set
forth in 37 CFR § 1.637 (b) relating to miscellaneous motions under § 1.635.
OPINION
There is no question that Hashimoto claims 1-8, the claims at issue, are directed to
a method of separately treating a glass surface of a container with a silane coupling
agent and then coating the treated surface with a reactive compound, the so-called "two-
step process"; whereas all other involved claims as well as the count are directed to a
method where the silane coupling agent and the reactive compound are applied together as a
single coating material to the glass surface, the so-called "one-step process."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007