Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
a second lower limb, shorter than said first
lower limb, and configured so that when said first
section is positioned in the lumen, said second
lower limb does not extend into a second leg of said
bifurcation,
and further comprising
a second section configured to be positioned
separately within the lumen and joined to said
second lower limb of the first section, effectively
extending said second lower limb into said second
leg of said bifurcation.
11. Cragg’s preliminary statement identifies only
Michael D. Dake as the inventor of the subject matter of the
count.
12. After the rendering of the Board’s decision on
preliminary motions (Paper No. 108) and subsequent service of
the preliminary statement of party Cragg, Cragg filed a
miscellaneous motion to amend or correct its preliminary
statement to identify Andrew H. Cragg and Michael D. Dake as
co-inventors of the subject matter of the count. (Paper No.
117).
13. Cragg’s motion to amend was denied. (Paper No.
130). A written opinion explaining the basis of that denial
followed. (Paper No. 140). Cragg requested reconsideration.
The original decision was adhered to on reconsideration.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007