Interference No. 101,981
§ 1.656(b)(4) in order to reach a decision in the case without
the further delay that would be caused by requiring new briefs
(see paper no. 269). In view of the waiver, we will treat
Beyers’ brief as though it presents the same issues as those of
the other parties. The Batlogg motion is therefore moot.
Batlogg (BaB 1-2)
Whether the “90% purity” requirement of the count means that at
least 90% of the composition is orthorhombic 1-2-3?
Whether the instant invention can be conceived without having made
and tested the composition?
Whether Qadri engaged in inequitable conduct?
Whether Qadri ever conceived the invention?
Whether Beyers conceived the invention prior to March 10, 1987?
Whether Batlogg actually reduced the invention to practice,
including whether neutron diffraction is essential to
reduction to practice?
Whether Batlogg’s involved application teaches how to produce the
superconductor composition called for by the count?
Whether Qadri can at this stage in the proceedings raise a “best
mode” issue that was not raised by preliminary motion?
Whether the involved Batlogg application meets the “best mode”
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112?
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007