Interference 102,728
IV. Issues for decision
1. Whether Singh has established that an Administrative Patent Judge (APJ)
erred in granting Brake’s Preliminary Motion 2 for benefit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(f).
If not,
2. Whether Singh has established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Singh conceived of the invention of the count prior to the effective date accorded
Brake; and, if so
3. Whether Singh has established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
reasonable diligence from a time prior to Brake’s effective date to an actual or
constructive reduction to practice.
V. Brake’s Preliminary Motion 2 for Benefit Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(f)
1. During the preliminary motion stage of this interference Brake filed eleven
(11) preliminary motions. Brake Preliminary Motion 2 requested that it be accorded the
benefit, for purposes of priority, of the January 12, 1983 filing date of Application
06/457,325 (the ‘325 application or Brake 1). Paper No. 15.
2. Singh opposed the preliminary motion (Paper No. 30), and a reply was
filed (Paper No. 44).
3. In Preliminary Motion 2, Brake argued that the ‘325 Application satisfies
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Paper No. 15,
pp. 5-7 and 8-10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007