Interference No. 101,981
judgment under §1.633(a) (paper no. 37) against Chu on grounds that Chu’s claim 94 lacked
adequate support, i.e., written description and enablement, for including inoperative species. As a
result of granting Chu’s motion, this interference was redeclared (paper no. 132) to designate all
but one (claim 94) of Chu’s claims as not corresponding to the count. As a result of granting
Beyers’ motion, Chu was placed under a show cause order under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.640(d)(1). Chu
responded to the show cause order (paper no. 135) requesting permission under § 1.615(a) to
amend claim 94. The request to amend the claim was dismissed, inter alia, as not timely filed as
required by § 1.645(b) and, accordingly, judgment (paper no. 142) was entered against Chu.
Qadri v. Chu, 18 USPQ2d 1254 (Bd. Pat. App & Int. 1990).6 On appeal, the Board’s decision
was affirmed (Chu v. Qadri et al. v. Beyers et al. v. Batlogg et al., No. 91-1319 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
paper no. 203).
Consequently, this interference now involves:
Qadri et al. (Qadri) – Serial No. 07/158,483, filed February 22, 1988;7
6 Batlogg had a similarly “overbroad” claim – claim 16. To be consistent
with its decision granting Beyers’ motion against Chu, the APJ moved sua
sponte for judgment against Batlogg pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.641 on the
ground that Batlogg’s claim 16 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of an enabling disclosure for a method of
making the claimed superconductors wherein the rare earth element was
solely Sc (paper no. 143). A motion pursuant to §§ 1.633(i) and (c) to
amend the claim to remove the inoperative species was filed (paper no.
150) and granted (paper no. 155).
7 According to Qadri (Preliminary Motions under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633; Motion
to Declare An Additional Interference (i.e., Q7); paper no. 39), this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007