Interference No. 103,203
(7) Nemerson et al.’s preliminary motion for judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
1.633(a) because Edgington et al. fail to name Dr. Yale Nemerson as a co-inventor
on the involved Edgington et al. patent. Paper No. 34. The motion stands opposed by
Edgington (Paper No. 37). No reply was deemed necessary (Paper No. 49).
(8) Edgington et al.’s Preliminary Motion 3 for judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
1.633(a) that Lawn et al.’s claims 9, 11 through 14, 30 and 32 through 38, are unpatentable
as being based on a specification which fails to satisfy the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Paper No. 166. The motion stands opposed by Lawn
(Paper No. 182) and a reply was filed (Paper No. 206).
(9) Edgington et al.’s Preliminary Motion 4 for judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
1.633(a) that Lawn et al.’s claims 9, 11 through 14, 30 and 32 through 38, are unpatentable
as being based on a specification which fails to satisfy the enablement and best mode
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Paper No. 167. The motion stands
opposed by Lawn (Paper No. 183) and a reply was filed (Paper No. 207).
(10) Edgington et al.’s Motion to Suppress exhibits offered by Party Nemerson et
al. pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § § 1.635 and 1.656(h). Paper No. 350. The motion stands
opposed by Nemerson et al. Paper No. 355.
DECISION ON MOTIONS
(1) Lawn et al.’s preliminary motion to substitute Count A (hereinafter, Count 2) for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007