Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Because no meaningful argument was presented by Cragg in
its opposition to Fogarty’s preliminary motion 8 as to why
claim 62 of Fogarty’s uninvolved application 08/684,508 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we reject
Cragg’s argument at final hearing that claim 62 of Fogarty’s
uninvolved application 08/684,508 is unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Alternatively, even if we do consider the substantive
arguments made for the first time by Cragg in its opposition
brief at final hearing concerning claim 62 of Fogarty’s
uninvolved application 08/684,508, the arguments are without
merit and do not make out a prima facie case that claim 62 of
Fogarty’s application 08/684,508 is without written
description support in the specification.
According to Cragg, the features (1) a first leg joined
to said anchor section, and (2) means for joining a second leg
to said anchor section, of claim 62 of Fogarty’s uninvolved
application 08/684,508 are without support in the
specification of application 08/684,508. Cragg contends that
“Fogarty’s first leg is never joined to an anchor section.”
Cragg explains that Fogarty’s first leg is positioned within a
fiber fabric liner at a location spaced below the anchor
- 55 -
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007