Interference No. 104,352
Kiel v. Graham
Because on this record Graham has no patentable claim
which corresponds to the existing count or any count proposed
by the parties, it is not necessary to decide Kiel’s
preliminary motion 2 to redefine the count and to designate
its claims 10 and 20 as not corresponding to the count.
Accordingly, Kiel’s preliminary motion 2 is dismissed as moot.
Because party Kiel has admitted to the unpatentability of
its own claims 1-9 and 11-19, we find those claims
unpatentable to party Kiel.
It is
ORDERED that judgment is herein entered as follows:
1. Junior party DAVID H. KIEL and KEITH D. CHURCH is
not entitled to a patent containing its claims 1-9 and 11-19;
2. On the record before us, senior party LIONELL
GRAHAM, JAMES R. HOLMAN, TERRY D. MATHIS, and MONTRI
VIRIYAYUTHAKORN is not entitled to its application claims 37-
45;
3. The judgment so entered today is without prejudice
to the senior party’s presenting claim amendments and/or
rebuttal evidence to the examiner to attempt to overcome the
holding of unpatentability as to its claims 37-45;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007