Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
rely upon at final hearing in connection with its seeking
review of the motion panel’s decision of Fogarty’s preliminary
motion 8. According to Cragg, Fogarty may not rely on these
exhibits at final hearing because Fogarty did not rely on
these exhibits when filing its preliminary motion 8.
Cragg has not pointed out, and it is not immediately
apparent, where in Fogarty’s briefs at final hearing are
references made to exhibits FE-3001, FE-3002, FE-3004, FE-
3005, and CE-1019, or how the substance of these exhibits have
been relied upon by Fogarty in meaningful furtherance of any
argument. Thus, with regard to these exhibits, Cragg has
failed to make out a prima facie case of why the motion to
suppress should be granted. Alternatively, even without
suppressing these exhibits, Fogarty’s arguments concerning its
preliminary motions 8 and 10 have not been shown to have
merit. Accordingly, Cragg’s motion to suppress is denied and
alternatively dismissed as moot.
C. Cragg’s Preliminary Motion 1
In Cragg’s preliminary motion 1, it is alleged that
Fogarty’s claims 41-69, not all of Fogarty’s claims
corresponding to the count, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, for lack of written description in the
- 63 -
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007