Interference No. 101,981
We direct our attention to three patentability issues, all under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112:
written description;
enablement; and,
best mode.
These three issues are raised in Beyers’ and Qadri’s briefs,
and in their relevant motions. They are raised, however, in a
confusing manner.
During the preliminary motion period, Beyers (paper no. 29)
moved for judgment against Batlogg on the grounds that Batlogg’s
claims corresponding to the count were not patentable to Batlogg
on three independent grounds: first, that Batlogg discloses an
incorrect tetragonal structure for their superconducting material
and therefore fails to meet the “description” and “enabling”
requirements of Section 112; second, Batlogg fails to disclose
the essential step of slow cooling and therefore fails to meet
the enabling requirement; and, third, Batlogg failed to provide
information consonant with the duties required under 37 CFR
§ 1.56. Beyers therefore has raised the written description
(i.e., incorrect tetragonal structure) and the enablement (i.e.,
incorrect tetragonal structure and no slow cooling) issues with
49
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007