Patent Interference No. 103,548
invention "A" is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of
invention "B" assuming invention "B" is prior art with respect to invention "A."
Konrad does not dispute that Lagrange patent claims 1-6, 24-25, 27-29,
Lagrange reissue claims 1-6, 24-25, 29, and Konrad claims 4-7 correspond to Count 2.
Accordingly, to meet its burden, Konrad must show that Lagrange patent and reissue
claims 22-23 are directed to the same patentable invention with respect to any of
Lagrange patent claims 1-6, 24-25, 27-29, Lagrange reissue claims 1-6, 24-25, 29, and
Konrad claims 4-7. Konrad must show that the invention of Lagrange patent and reissue
claims 22-23 is anticipated by (35 U.S.C. § 102) or rendered obvious over (35 U.S.C. §
103) the invention of any of Lagrange patent claims 1-6, 24-25, 27-29, Lagrange
reissue claims 1-6, 24-25, 29, and Konrad claims 4-7.
Anticipation
Konrad does not assert that Lagrange's claims are anticipated by any of the
undisputed claims.
Obviousness
The Decision on Motions44 has significantly reduced the issues for our
consideration.
44 The following comments were made in the Decision on Motions (paper no. 49, pp. 37):
The parties should discuss whether the subject matter of Konrad claims 4-7 in view of both
Parent '404 and French '061 provides a basis for finding Lagrange claims 22 and 23 unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. French '061 would appear to show that Lagrange Composition (B) can be
used with indoles. Parent '404 shows that indoles and indolines can be expected to function as
dyes. Accordingly, would it have been obvious to use the Composition (B) of French '061 or Grollier
'500 with the indolines of Konrad claims 4-7 given that indoles and indolines appear to be
"equivalents" when used as dyes?
47
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007