Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
As for Goicoechea’s assertion that Fogarty’s
claims 27-69, all of Fogarty’s claims which have
been designated as corresponding to the count in the
declaration of this interference, do not correspond
to the count, Goicoechea has to satisfy the
requirements set forth in 37 CFR § 1.637(c)(4).
Goicoechea has to show that each of Fogarty’s claims
27-69 does not define the same patentable invention
as any of Goicoechea’s claims and Martin’s claims
whose correspondence to the count Goicoechea does
not dispute.
As is already discussed above in connection with
Goicoechea’s assertion of no interference-in-fact,
Goicoechea has not established patentable
distinction between Fogarty’s claims 41-69 and at
least Goicoechea’s claim 55 and claim 90, and also
between Fogarty’s claims 27-69 and at least
Goicoechea’s claim 59. Goicoechea’s preliminary
motion 2 to designate Fogarty’s claims 27-69 as not
corresponding to the count is denied.
Nothing presented by Cragg in its brief at final hearing
demonstrates that our above-quoted analysis was in error.
- 81 -
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007