Patent Interference No. 103,548
Accordingly, to meet its burden, Konrad must show that the Lagrange reissue claims
30-33 define 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 reissue claims 30-33 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/or Konrad claims 4-7.
Konrad does not dispute that Lagrange patent and reissue claims 9-21 and 26
and Konrad claims 13-14 correspond to Count 3. Accordingly, to meet its burden,
Konrad must show that the Lagrange reissue claim 34 defines the same patentable
invention with respect to any of Lagrange patent and reissue claims 9-21 and 26 and
Konrad claims 13-14. Konrad must show that the invention of Lagrange reissue claim
34 is anticipated by (35 U.S.C. § 102) or rendered obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103) in view of
the invention of any of Lagrange patent and reissue claims 9-21 and 26 and/or Konrad
claims 13-14 designated as corresponding to the count.
Lagrange Reissue Claim 30
To prevail on its motion to designate Lagrange reissue claim 30 as
corresponding to Count 2, Konrad must establish that Lagrange reissue claim 30 is the
same patentable invention as any other claim whose designation as corresponding to
the count it does not dispute. In that regard, Konrad is seeking to establish that
Lagrange reissue claim 30 is the same patentable invention as Lagrange patent/reissue
claim 4 and/or Konrad claims 4-7 whose designation as corresponding to the count it
55
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007