Patent Interference No. 103,548
See Lagrange's Notice of Filing a Reissue Application (paper no. 35, p. 3). Also,
Lagrange hereby concede priority of the subject matter of Counts 1 and 2 to the
party Konrad subject to the granting of Party Lagrange et al’s Preliminary Motion 2
to designate Lagrange patent claim 29 as not corresponding to the counts and
subject to the denial of Konrad et al Preliminary Motion No. 5 to designate
Lagrange patent claims 22 and 23 as corresponding to the counts.
See Lagrange's Concession of Priority (paper no. 38).
Accordingly, we find that Lagrange has not proved prior invention by a
preponderance of the evidence, and therefore, Konrad is the presumptive first inventor
of the subject matter of Counts 1-3.
As the presumptive first inventor, Konrad is entitled to priority in the interference
based on its constructive reduction to practice as of the May 19, 1990 filing date of
German application P 40 16 177.3 and is therefore entitled to a patent containing
patentable claims designated as corresponding to a count. In that regard, Lagrange has
not moved for judgment attacking the patentability of any Konrad claim designated as
corresponding to a count. Accordingly, Konrad's claims designated as corresponding to
the counts are presumed patentable. As a result, Konrad is entitled to a patent
containing claims 1-14 of Application 07/949,851.
▫─────▫
In light of our priority determination, Lagrange is not entitled to priority as to the
subject matter of Counts 1-3. Therefore, Lagrange is not entitled to a patent containing
claims designated to correspond to the counts; currently that means claims 1-21, 24-29
of Lagrange reissue application 08/676,491 and claims 1-21, 24-29 of Lagrange U.S.
Patent 5,178,637 - although Lagrange challenges the designation of Lagrange patent
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007