Interference No. 103,141
cited evidence from the specification of the Sawada involved21
application that Sawada regarded the oxide powder species of
the involved application as a patentable improvement over the
oxide paste disclosed in the Japanese application 62-77941.
This evidence alone is also sufficient enough for us to
independently
decide that count E cannot be properly added to this
interference.
We have independently evaluated the issue of the
propriety of adding count E to the interference. We have
reached the same conclusion as Judge Smith. Motion 11 stands
properly DENIED.
The Denial of Sawada Preliminary Motion 12 to Accord Sawada
Benefit of Japanese Application No. 62-77941 as to Proposed
Count E
As noted above, Sawada Motion 11 to add proposed
count E to the interference was properly denied.
Consequently, it could not have been improper for the APJ to
21Sawada specification at 7.
29
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007