Interference No. 101,981
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.635 for “judgment” against Qadri under 37 C.F.R. § 1.616 for
violation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.615. (filed November 23, 1992;
paper no. 245)
Batlogg
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a) for judgment on grounds that Qadri’s
claims 24-25 are not patentable to Qadri due to Qadri’s
inequitable conduct. (filed April 1, 1992; paper no. 195)
under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and 1.656(h) to suppress evidence by
Beyers for improperly raising issue of sufficiency of
Batlogg’s application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, namely
enablement. (filed June 26, 1992; paper no. 223(1))
BaM3 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and 1.656(h) to suppress evidence
by Qadri for improperly raising the issue of sufficiency
of Batlogg’s application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, namely
best mode and enablement. (filed June 26, 1992; paper no.
223(2))
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.635 to return Beyers’ brief. (filed June 26,
1992; paper no. 225)
Statement of the Issues
Qadri’s and Bartlogg’s statements of the issues are
reproduced verbatim from their briefs.
Qadri (QB 1-2)
What constitutes conception of the count of this interference?
What structural details of a single phase Re(Ba,Sr) 2Cu3Ox
material of Tc above 70K are essential to the conception
of the count?
What processing steps are critical to the production of a
superconducting compound according to the count?
Whether the Party Qadri’s activities of March 2, 1987, when
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007