Interference No. 103,435
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Junior party
has failed to prove inequitable conduct by the Senior party.
The issue of suppression and concealment
The Senior party argues that Christ suppressed and
concealed the invention. However, as we have found that the
Junior party was not diligent in reducing the invention to
practice, this issue is moot.
Blake’s 37 CFR § 1.633 motions
The Senior party Larry Blake argues that the Junior
party’s claims 1 through 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,590. In view
of our determination that the Junior party has failed to
establish diligence, this issue is moot.
The Senior party also argues in a 1.633 motion pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 132 that the change that was made by an
examiner’s motion in a table which reported pull strengths for
the haptics from 122 to 112 was new matter and therefore
invalidates the Christ patent. In view of our determination
that the Junior party has failed to establish diligence, this
issue is moot.
30
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007