Interference No. 103,587
2. Whether the existence of a photograph (LX-9) on November 30, 1987, combined with
related testimony, proves priority of invention by Levien by a preponderance of the
evidence.
3. Whether Katayama should be denied the benefit of priority of its Japanese
Application Nos. 62-289152 and 62-289170 and U.S. Application No. 07/270,809 for
failure to provide a written description or enabling embodiment of the invention
defined by the count.4
4. Whether Levien’s preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment on the
basis that Katayama claims 42, 43, 48 and 49 are not patentable to Katayama under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 should be granted.
5. Whether Levien’s preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment that
Katayama claims 32-41, 44-47 and 53-55 are not patentable to Katayama under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, should be granted.
Katayama presented the following issues in its brief filed April 7, 1997:
1. Whether Levien has proved conception coupled with diligence to an actual reduction
to practice.
2. Whether the inference of suppression or concealment resulting from an over twenty-
six month delay between Levien’s alleged actual reduction to practice and the filing
date of Levien’s original U.S. patent application has been adequately exc used.
3. Whether the involved claims of Levien are unpatentable over Katayama U.S. Patent
No. 5,325,448, filed November 14, 1988.
4 This issue was raised in a belated motion filed by Levien on January 2, 1997 (Paper No. 79)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007