Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Party A must anticipate or render obvious the
claimed invention of Party B and the claimed
invention of Party B must anticipate or render
obvious the claimed invention of Party A.
For a showing of no-interference-in-fact, the
burden is on Goicoechea as the movant, see, e.g., 37
CFR § 1.637(a), to demonstrate that all of
Goicoechea’s claims 55, 59, 62-65, 88 and 90 which
correspond to the count do not define the same
patentable invention as any one of Fogarty’s claims
27-69, or that all of Fogarty’s claims 21-69 do not
define the same patentable invention as any one of
Goicoechea’s claims 55, 59, 62-65, 88 and 90.
Goicoechea has attempted to show that all of its
claims 55, 59, 62-65, 88 and 90 define an invention
process which is neither anticipated nor obvious
over any one of Fogarty’s claims 27-69.
Goicoechea argues that all of its claims include
a “long-leg, short-leg” concept which is absent from
and not suggested by any one of Fogarty’s claims
corresponding to the count. Also, apparently
referring to the count, the motion on page 10
- 74 -
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007