Interference No. 102,408
(4) Should the rebuttal testimony of senior party Kolar
be stricken as improperly executed?
(5) If the rebuttal testimony of Kolar is not stricken,
does it rebut the priority case of Child?
Kolar's brief raises the following issues (KB1-2):
(6) Has junior party Child established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, an actual reduction
to practice of the subject matter of the count prior
to Kolar's effective filing date of September 3,
1984?
(7) Does the testimonial evidence submitted by junior
party Child enable the skilled artisan to conclude
that the invention of the count was reduced to
practice by the junior party prior to Kolar's
effective filing date of September 3, 1984?
(8) Has junior party Child abandoned, suppressed or
concealed the invention of the count?
(9) Has senior party Kolar properly filed the
declaration of Dr. Cenek Kolar as rebuttal testimony
under 37 CFR § 1.672(b)?
(10) Does the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Kolar
effectively support Kolar's allegations with
respect to Child's priority case?
In addition, Child filed a motion to strike the rebuttal
testimony of Dr. Cenek Kolar (Paper Nos. 63 and 64) which was
opposed by Kolar (Paper Nos. 68 and 69). Kolar filed a motion
to suppress evidence under 37 CFR § 1.656(h) (Paper No. 85)
which was opposed by Child (Paper No. 89).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007