Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
each of Fogarty’s claims 27-69 does not define the same
patentable invention as any of Cragg’s claims and Martin
claims whose correspondence to the count is not disputed by
Cragg.
Cragg’s arguments with regard to designating Fogarty’s
claims as not corresponding to the count is merely a reference
to its arguments alleging no interference-in-fact between
Cragg’s claims and Fogarty’s claims. Cragg evidently is of
the view that if it has demonstrated no interference-in-fact
between its claims and Martin’s claims on the one hand and
Fogarty’s claims on the other hand, then the case has been
made that Fogarty’s claims corresponding to the count should
be designated as not corresponding to the count. But Cragg
has failed to demonstrate no interference-in-fact between its
claims and Martin’s claims on the one hand and Fogarty’s
claims on the other hand. Thus, no reason has been shown to
designate Fogarty’s claims 27-69 as not corresponding to the
count. Note also that even if there was no interference-in-
fact with respect to any Fogarty claim, Fogarty’s application
would become uninvolved and there would be no need to
designate any of its claims as not corresponding to the count.
For the foregoing reasons, Cragg has shown no error in
- 95 -
Page: Previous 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007