Interference 102,760
Dement et al. argue that their motion should be granted
because Rapoport’s Brief raises issues beyond the single
remaining issue of unpatentability of Claims 1-13 of
Application 07/695,325 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). We deny the
motion. To consider the issue of unpatentability of the
subject matter Dement et al. claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f),
we must ask whether the joint inventors named in Application
07/695,325 invented the subject matter sought to be patented.
Rapoport’s motion under
37 C.F.R. §1.633(a) certainly opens a Pandora’s Box of
questions regarding (1) the preliminary statements of joint
inventorship and conception, (2) the Board’s prior decision on
priority of invention, and (3) the patentability of the
subject matter claimed in Application 07/695,325 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(g)/103. While we might literally strike from
Rapoport’s Brief all references to matters which relate to
patentability under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f), their relationship to the single issue
before us is apparent. Because our discussion and disposition
of the Section 102(f) issue predisposes the related issues
raised in Rapoport’s Brief, we deny the Dement et al. motion
to strike all references thereto from Rapoport’s Brief.
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007