Interference No. 103,611
§ 1.633(f) to be accorded benefit for count 1 of the September
26, 1990 filing date of Serial No. 588,351, now U.S. Patent
5,231,709. Miller’s motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(c) to
redefine the interfering subject matter by designating its claims
1, 5, 10, 12, 16-18 and 20-34 as not corresponding to the count
was dismissed as to non-corresponding claim 22 and otherwise
denied. In the decision, the APJ dismissed a motion of Miller
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(c) to redefine the interfering subject
matter by adding proposed count 2.
Both parties took testimony to establish priority of
invention, filed briefs and gave oral argument under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.654.
In its opening brief at page 3, the party Stevens set
forth the following statement of issues:
Whether Stevens has proven by preponderance
of the evidence that it conceived the
invention defined by the count prior to the
filing date of Miller’s involved application
and whether Stevens subsequently reduced the
invention to practice;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007