Interference No. 103,640
Issues
The following issues are presented by the parties for
consideration in their respective briefs:
i) whether the APJ should have granted the Ausnit
motion for judgment based on 35 U.S.C. § 103;
ii) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit
motion for judgment based on 35 U.S.C. § 135(b);
iii) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit
motion for judgment based on res judicata or collateral estoppel;
iv) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit
motions to have claims 10-19 and 19-26 designated as not
corresponding to the count;
v) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit motion
for judgment based on the ground of inequitable conduct;
vi) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit
motion for judgment based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph;
vii) whether the APJ should have denied the Ausnit
motions for judgment based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph;
and
viii) whether the APJ should have denied Inagaki
benefit of Japanese application 62-17738.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007