Interference No. 104,241
the facts
in the record. Specifically, Jeon et al. requested that,
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.607, an interference be declared
with Cupps et al. (see Paper Number 10). The very rule under
which Jeon et al. requested an interference requires that the
party requesting the interference present a proposed count,
present at least one claim in their involved application
corresponding to the count and identify at least one claim in
the patent with whom the party seeks an interference which
corresponds to the count. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.607(a).
It is clear from a review of Jeon et al.'s original
submission that Jeon et al. intended to file and actually
filed their showing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b), not 37 C.F.R §
1.608(a) as argued by Jeon et al. It is also clear that,
contrary to Jeon et al.'s argument that they did not know what
the count in the interference would be, Jeon et al. proposed a
count in their original showing, as required by the rule,
which proposed count was identical to Jeon et al.'s claim 29.
Claim 14 of Cupps et al. patent was said by Jeon et al. in
their original showing to correspond exactly to the count
proposed by them.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007