Interference 102,760
“We hold that Rapoport has not sustained his burden of
proof to show that judgment should be entered against Dement
et al” (Decision, Paper No. 112, p. 10, first para.). “[W]e
agree with Dement et al. that the two presentations given by
Dr. Rapoport and the publications . . . do not render Dement
et al. claims unpatentable” (Decision, Paper No. 112, p. 11,
last full sentence).
C. Priority of the Invention of the Count
“Rapoport has lost the priority contest and is not
entitled to his claims corresponding to the count” (Decision,
Paper
No. 112, pp. 18-19, bridging para.).
3. Deferred Issue
Whether Rapoport has shown that Claims 1-13 of Dement et
al. Application 07/657,332 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(f).
4. Supplemental Evidence Relevant To Deferred Issue
A. “As to claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13 of application
Serial No. 07/695,325, the inventive entity comprises . . .
Dement, . . . Rosekind and . . . Schwimmer. The date the
conception of the invention as defined by those claims was
complete was prior to April, 1986. The date the invention
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007