Interference No. 101,981
We now discuss these issues in light of the arguments in the briefs and relevant motions.
Whether Batlogg’s Application Complies With The Written
Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112
Qadri has raised an issue (QI5; QB 6224-66) with respect to Batlogg’s compliance with
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because Qadri never
filed a motion for judgment on the grounds that Batlogg’s claims
were unpatentable under 35 USC 112, for lack of written
description, Qadri is not entitled to consideration of this issue
at final hearing. 37 C.F.R. § 1.655(b). Qadri could have raised
the written description issue by preliminary motion but elected
not to do so. Qadri does not explain why it was not properly
raised by a timely filed motion for judgment for lack of a
written description and why it should now be considered instead.
Nor do they argue that their failure to raise the issue was for
"good cause." As a result, we do not consider Qadri’s argument
on whether Batlogg complies with the written description
24 “A. Party Batlogg’s Patent Application . . . Fails to Contain a Written Description of the
Invention”.
53
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007