Interference No. 103,605
The claims of the parties which correspond to this count
are:
Aggarwal: Claims 41-43
Yamada: Claims 1, 2 and 4
Aggarwal has agreed to forgo its right as junior party to
put on a case for prior inventorship with respect to the
invention defined by the count of this interference (see Paper
No. 49). Accordingly, a judgment against Aggarwal as to the
subject matter of the count will be entered in short order.4
Before issuing judgment against Aggarwal, we are asked to
decide whether Yamada claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 1035.
Both parties have presented a record, submitted exhibits,
filed briefs and appeared, through counsel, at final hearing6.
4 The final judgment in this interference, infra, will indicate
that Aggarwal is not entitled to any claims which correspond to
the count.
5 This patentability question is the only issue raised in the
parties’ briefs and, therefore, the only issue before us for
decision. The issue was originally raised in a preliminary
motion filed by Aggarwal (Paper No. 22); and consideration of the
motion was deferred to final hearing in the Decision on Motions
of Oct. 21, 1998 (Paper No. 43).
6 The Aggarwal record, exhibits, brief and reply brief will be
respectively referred to, as appropriate, by the abbreviations
“AR”, “AX”, “AB” and “ARB” followed by a pertinent page or
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007