Patent Interference No. 103,548
This is a Final Decision in the interference proceeding involving:
· Lagrange et al. (Lagrange), U.S. Patent No. 5,178,637, filed May 31, 1991;
· Lagrange Reissue (Lagrange Reissue), Application 08/676,491, filed July 8, 19963;
and,
· Konrad et al. (Konrad), Application 07/949,851, filed November 19, 1992.
The following three counts define the interfering subject matter:
COUNT 1
The process for oxidative dyeing of keratin fibers of claim 1 of the Konrad application,
or,
the method for dyeing keratinous fibers of claim 7 of the Lagrange patent.
COUNT 2
The hair dyes of claim 4 of the Konrad application,
or,
the tinctorial composition of claim 1 of the Lagrange patent,
or,
the new compound of claim 28 of the Lagrange patent,
3 The reissue application was added to the interference in the Decision on Preliminary and Other
Motions (paper no. 49).
The questions of whether reissue application 08/676,491 should be added to the interference and
whether any of the Lagrange reissue claims should be designated to correspond to the counts were
raised during oral arguments on preliminary motions conducted on September 30, 1996 (see paper no.
47). Lagrange had previously filed a Notice of Filing a Reissue Application (paper no. 35). The reissue
application 1) amends patent claims 1-21 and 24-26 to limit them to n-(C2-C4)alkyl-5,6-dihydroxyindoline
compounds; 2) cancels Lagrange patent claims 27 and 28; and 3) adds new claims 30-34 directed to
tinctorial compositions and a method of using them. Patent claims 22 and 23, directed to a
multicomponent dyeing agent, and 29, directed to n-(C2-C4)alkyl-5,6-dihydroxyindoline compounds,
remain unchanged. In view of the fact that Lagrange patent and reissue claims 29 are identical and patent
claim 29 had already been designated as corresponding to Count 2, the APJ added the Lagrange reissue
to the interference pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.642 and redeclared the interference (paper no. 49, p. 42) to
designate reissue claims 1-21, 24-26 and 29 as corresponding to the counts and reissue claims 22, 23
and 30-34 as not corresponding to the counts. The reissue application was also accorded the benefit, for
the purpose of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), of French patent application 90/06,803, filed May 31,
1990 (see paper no. 49, p. 43).
The APJ permitted the parties to file additional preliminary motions under 37 CFR §§ 1.633(c)(3)
or (4) (paper no. 49, p. 41) and oppositions and supplemental affidavits in support of the preliminary
motions and oppositions, in order to address the way in which the Lagrange reissue claims were
designated to correspond to the counts. Parties were not permitted to file replies (paper no. 49, p. 41).
Lagrange and Konrad availed themselves of this opportunity to file Preliminary Motion 3, Preliminary
Motion 7 and Contingent Preliminary Motion 8.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007