Patent Interference No. 103,548
conclude that the requisite identity exists between the composition of Lagrange reissue
claim 30 and the composition of Lagrange patent claim 4 and, accordingly, hold that
Lagrange patent claim 4 anticipates Lagrange reissue claim 30.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Lagrange reissue claim 30 is the same
patentable invention as Lagrange patent claim 4, whose designation as corresponding
to Count 2 is not in dispute. Accordingly, we GRANT Konrad Preliminary Motion 7 and
designate reissue claim 30 as corresponding to Count 2.
Because we hold that Lagrange patent claim 4 anticipates Lagrange reissue
claim 30, we do not reach the issue of whether Lagrange reissue claim 30 would have
been obvious over Konrad claims 4-7 in view of other prior art.
Lagrange Reissue Claim 31
Lagrange reissue claim 31 is directed to a tinctorial composition comprising an
indoline and medium, as set forth in Lagrange reissue claim 30, and further containing
an additive. Lagrange reissue claim 31 provides a list of 11 possible types of additives.
To prevail on its motion to designate Lagrange reissue claim 31 as
corresponding to Count 2, Konrad must establish that Lagrange reissue claim 31 is the
same patentable invention as any other claim whose designation as corresponding to
the count it does not dispute. In that regard, Konrad seeks to establish that Lagrange
reissue claim 31 is the same patentable invention as Lagrange patent claim 5 or Konrad
claim 4, whose designation as corresponding to the count it does not dispute.
57
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007