STEVENS v. MILLER - Page 2




          Interference No. 103,611                                                    


                    A deck for seating or bedding, said deck being edge               
          supported by a frame of a sofa sleeper movable between a folded             
          sofa position and an unfolded bed position, said deck comprising            
          a plurality of support members extending generally in the same              
          direction to form a support, said support members having adjacent           
          ends connected to each other for movement relative to each other,           
          and at least one stop on each said member arranged such that upon           
          movement of said members in one direction the stop will engage a            
          stop surface on an adjacent support member to limit movement and            
          upon movement of the members in a direction opposite said one               
          direction the stop will be spaced from the stop surface on said             
          adjacent support member to permit movement in said opposite                 
          direction, each end of each said support member having at least             
          one recess and at least one projection for mating with a similar            
          said recess and projection on said adjacent support member.                 

                    The claims of the parties which correspond to this                
          count are:                                                                  
                    Stevens :  Claims 1-15                                            
                    Miller    : Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23-36                  
                    This proceeding was declared on August 22, 1995 with              
          Stevens claim 1 and Miller claim 35 corresponding exactly to                
          count 1.  The party Miller was accorded senior party status on              
          the basis of the earlier filing date of its involved application.           
                    The Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) decided motions             
          filed by Miller in a Decision on Preliminary Motions dated March            
          21, 1996.  In that decision, the APJ denied motions of Miller (1)           
          under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a) for judgment that Stevens involved               
          claims 1-15 are unpatentable to Stevens under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103           
          over U.S. Patent 5,231,709 to Miller and, (2) under 37 C.F.R.               



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007