Interference No. 103,203
(1) Lawn et al.’s Preliminary Motion 1 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(c)(1) to
substitute proposed Count A or, in the alternative, Count B, for the existing count. Paper
No. 171. The motion stands opposed by Edgington (Paper No. 189) and a reply was filed
(Paper No. 195).
(2) Lawn et al.’s Preliminary Motion 2 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(f) to be
accorded the benefit of the filing dates of the applications for which priority is claimed for
their proposed Count A or Count B. Paper No. 172. The motion stands opposed by
Edgington (Paper No. 191) and a reply was filed (Paper No. 196).
(3) Lawn et al.’s Preliminary Motion 3 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.635 to amend the
specification. Paper No. 187. The motion stands opposed by Edgington (Paper No. 205)
and a reply was filed (Paper No. 217).
(4) Nemerson et al.’s motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.634 to add Dr. Spicer as a
co-inventor. Paper No. 23. The motion stands opposed (Paper No. 38) and a reply was
filed (Paper No. 53).
(5) Nemerson et al.’s preliminary motion for judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
1.633(a) that Edgington et al.’s claims 1 through 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph (enablement). Paper No. 27. The motion stands opposed by
Edgington (Paper No. 39) and a reply was filed (Paper No. 51).
(6) Nemerson et al.’s preliminary motion for judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
1.633(a) that Edgington committed fraud and inequitable conduct before the PTO. Paper
No. 32. The motion stands opposed by Edgington (Paper No. 41) and a reply was filed
(Paper No. 52).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007