Patent Interference No. 103,548
Order Redeclaring the Interference10 (paper no. 49) and as represented by their
Statements of the Issues11.
The outstanding motions are:
Lagrange12
10 A combined Decision on Preliminary and Other Motions, Order Setting Testimony and Related Periods,
and Order Redeclaring the Interference (paper no. 49) [Decision on Motions] was rendered on October 1,
1996. The motions that were addressed and their corresponding decisions are as follows:
· Lagrange:
· Preliminary Motion 1 (paper no. 22) – granted
· Preliminary Motion 2 (paper no. 24) – deferred to final hearing
· Konrad:
· Preliminary Motion 1 (paper no. 26) – dismissed without prejudice
· Preliminary Motion 2 (paper no. 27) – granted
· Preliminary Motion 3 (paper no. 28) – granted
· Preliminary Motion 4 (paper no. 29) – granted
· Preliminary Motion 5 (paper no. 30) – deferred to final hearing
· Preliminary Motion 6 (paper no. 31) – granted
11 A verbatim copy of which is provided in Appendix 4.
12 Lagrange filed LPM2 on June 4, 1996, during the preliminary motion phase. In support thereof,
Lagrange submitted a first declaration of Jean Cotteret (Cotteret I, filed June 4, 1996; see paper no. 35
and LR 1-4). Subsequently, Lagrange filed a Notice of Filing a Reissue Application (paper no. 35). Konrad
filed an opposition to the motion (Konrad Opposition 2, paper no. 40, filed July 12, 1996) which was
supported with a first declaration of Horst Höffkes (Höffkes I, paper no. 40, see KR 7-9) as well as a prior
art reference, i.e., US Patent 5,011,500 to Grollier. Lagrange filed a reply (Lagrange Reply 2, paper no.
41, filed August 2, 1996) supported by a third Cotteret declaration (Cotteret III; paper no. 41, see KR 12-
16).
Oral arguments on preliminary motions were held on September 30, 1996. On October 1, 1996, a
Decision on Preliminary and Other Motions (paper no. 49) was rendered. After reviewing LPM2, Konrad's
opposition and Lagrange's reply, Cotteret I-III and Höffkes I, as well as the Grollier '500 reference, a final
decision on LPM2 was ordered deferred to final hearing (paper no. 49, p. 23).
In deferring a final decision on LPM2, issues of anticipation (paper no. 49, pp. 18-19) and
obviousness (paper no. 49, pp. 19-20) of the Lagrange Patent claim 29, as well as "loose ends" in the
declarations of the parties (paper no. 49, pp. 21-23), were commented upon. The parties were authorized
to submit supplemental declarations to overcome objections by opponents and the comments raised in
the decision (paper no. 49, p. 23). Lagrange responded with a Supplement to LPM2 (paper no. 60, filed
March 31, 1997) supported with a fourth Cotteret declaration (Cotteret IV, paper no. 61, filed March 31,
1997; see LR 17-22). Konrad responded with a third Höffkes declaration (Höffkes III, paper no. 65, filed
April 21, 1997; see KR 14-21). We note that Lagrange responded to a number of points made in Höffkes
III in their Opposition to KPM3 (paper no. 66, May 2, 1997; pp. 11-14), as well as in their fifth Cotteret
declaration (Cotteret V, paper no. 66, filed May 2, 1997; see LR 24-25). Konrad responds in its Reply to
Lagrange's Opposition to KPM3 (paper no. 74, filed August 4, 1997; p. 7) and in its fifth Höffkes
declaration (Höffkes V, paper no. 75; pp. 2-4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007