Interference No. 101,981
PATENTABILITY
In this section, we review the question of patentability
raised by the junior parties. As we have stated, Batlogg is
entitled to priority based on their constructive reduction to
practice as of the filing date of their application but only if
they are entitled to a patent with at least one patentable claim
corresponding to the count. Before discussing the question of
patentability, and specifically with respect to whether Batlogg
has complied with the provisions of the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, we make the following comments.
The movants bear the burden of proof with respect to the
motions for judgment on the ground that Batlogg’s claims
corresponding to the count are unpatentable to Batlogg. Behr v.
Talbott, 27 USPQ2d 1401, 1405 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int 1992).
We direct our attention to Batlogg’s claim 16. Batlogg does
not seek review of the APJ’s decision holding that claims 1-15
are unpatentable to Batlogg.21 Photis v. Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948 (Bd. Pat.Int.
21 See paper no. 131, pp. 6-7, wherein the APJ stated:
“. . . Batlogg does admit on page 14 of his opposition [to Chu’s motion under 1.633(a) for
judgment (paper no. 60) on the ground that Batlogg’s claims 1-16 corresponding to the count
are unpatentable to Batlogg] that he learned of Chu’s disclosure of high temperature
47
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007