Patent Interference No. 103,548
inconsistency in Lagrange’s position which renders the evidence inconclusive on the
issue of nonobviousness as to Lagrange claims 22-23
After careful review of the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude
that a prima facie case of obviousness has been made out and not overcome by
objective evidence of nonobviousness. Konrad has met its burden of proof with respect
to its motions and, accordingly, we GRANT Konrad Preliminary Motions 5 and 7 with
respect to Lagrange’s patent and reissue claims 22-23 and designate them as
corresponding to Count 2.
Lagrange patent and reissue claims 22 and 23 are designated as corresponding
to Count 2. Consequently, given our determination that Konrad is entitled to priority for
the subject matter of Count 2, Lagrange is not entitled to a patent containing claims 22
and 23 of Lagrange U.S. Patent 5,178,637 or claims 22 and 23 of Lagrange Reissue
Application 08/676,491.
Claims 30-34 of Lagrange Reissue Application 08/676,491
Konrad challenges the designation of Lagrange reissue claims 30-34 as not
corresponding to the counts. Konrad moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(3) to redefine the
interfering subject matter by designating:
· Lagrange reissue claims 30-33 to correspond to Count 2; and,
· Lagrange reissue claim 34 to correspond to Count 3.
See Konrad Preliminary Motion 7 (paper no. 63) [KPM7].
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.
54
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007