Interference 102,760
7. Decisions on Preliminary Motions
A. Rapoport’s Motion Under 37 CFR §1.633(a) filed
June 10, 1992 (Paper No. 12), arguing that Dement et al.
claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or § 103
because (1) Dement et al. derived the invention of Count 1
from Rapoport, and (2) Dement et al. claims are unpatentable
over presentations in the U.S. by Rapoport on March 5, 1988,
and March 11, 1989,
was DENIED by Decision mailed April 12, 1996 (Paper No. 112)
and Reconsideration mailed September 6, 1996 (Paper No. 122).
B. Rapoport’s Motion To Accept Belated Filing Of
Preliminary Motion Under 37 CFR 1.633(a) filed June 1, 1993
(Paper No. 51), was GRANTED by Decision mailed April 12, 1996
(Paper No. 112) and Reconsideration mailed September 6, 1996
(Paper No. 122).
C. Rapoport Second Motion To Accept Belated Filing Of
Preliminary Motion Under 37 CFR 1.633(a) filed July 9, 1993
(Paper No. 63) was DENIED by Decision mailed April 12, 1996
(Paper No. 112) and Reconsideration mailed September 6, 1996
(Paper No. 122).
D. Rapoport Motion For Judgment Under 37 CFR 1.633(a)
filed July 9, 1993 (Paper No. 64), arguing that Dement et al.
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007