Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
in this interference or a new interference with Fogarty does
not mean Fogarty has been subjected to prejudice. A
dominating claim is not necessarily a claim drawn to the same
patentable invention as a dominated claim. In either case,
however, with regard to Cragg’s allegedly dominating claim 89
Fogarty has shown no prejudice by the denial of its
preliminary motion 8.
5. Fogarty’s preliminary motion 10
Fogarty’s preliminary motion 10 sought to be accorded
benefit of the earlier filing date of application 08/255,681,
with respect to the count proposed in connection with
Fogarty’s preliminary motion 8. Consequently, preliminary
motion 10 is contingent upon the granting of preliminary
motion 8. Because Fogarty’s preliminary motion 8 was properly
denied, Fogarty’s preliminary motion 10 was correctly
dismissed as moot.
6. Cragg’s Motion to Suppress
Cragg has filed a motion to suppress five exhibits FE-
3001, FE-3002, FE-3004, FE-3005, and CE-1019. These are
exhibits identified by party Fogarty, prior to submission of
its brief at final hearing, as those which Fogarty intended to
- 62 -
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007