procedural matters." Consideration of Interlocutory Rulings
at Final Hearing in Interference Proceedings, 64 Fed. Reg.
12900, 12901 (March 16, 1999).
Bourdeau’s Brief
Bourdeau maintains that Okajima’s claims 18-20 should be
designated as corresponding to the count. Okajima claim 18 is
an independent claim. Okajima claim 19 depends on claim 18.
Okajima claim 20 depends on claim 19.
At the heart of the issue is how the term “plane of
approximate symmetry” should be interpreted with respect to
Okajima’s claim 18. Okajima’s claim 18 recites “[a] pair of
snowboard boots.” Okajima’s specification defines the term
“plane of approximate symmetry” in two locations, pages 4-5
and 9. The first definition is directed to a single boot.
(Finding 19). The second definition is directed to a pair of
boots. (Finding 20). The first and second definitions are
different. The plane of approximate symmetry will be
different depending on which definition applies.
Bourdeau contends, and it is not disputed, that the first
definition of the “plane of approximate symmetry” is the same
as the longitudinal median plane” recited in Bourdeau’s claim
27 (the count). (Paper 49 at 7). Bourdeau does not suggest
that Okajima’s second definition of the “plane of approximate
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007