Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Martin’s claim 2. Fogarty has failed to demonstrate that it9
had been claiming substantially the same invention as Martin’s
claim 1 within the one-year period of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b).
3. Cragg’s Assertion that claim 62 of
Fogarty’s uninvolved application is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs
9This is in contrast with the applicant’s claiming the
same patentable invention as the patentee but merely adds
features which are of no criticality or significance. See
Stalego v. Heymes, 263 F.2d at 338, 120 USPQ at 477.
- 52 -
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007