Patent Interference No. 103,548
determination that Konrad is entitled to priority of the subject matter of Counts 2 and 3,
Lagrange is not entitled to a patent containing claims 30-34 of Lagrange Reissue
Application 08/676,491 designated to correspond to the counts.
OTHER ISSUES
Konrad Contingent Preliminary Motion 8
Konrad (paper no. 64) moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment against
Lagrange reissue claim 34 designated to correspond to Count 3 on the grounds that the
claim is not patentable to Lagrange. Lagrange reissue claim 34 is designated to
correspond to Count 3 by virtue of the fact that we granted, supra, Konrad's Preliminary
Motion 7 under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(3) to designate Lagrange reissue claim 34 as
corresponding to Count 3. However, in view of the grant of that motion and that Konrad
is entitled to priority of the subject matter of Count 3, Lagrange cannot be entitled to a
patent containing reissue claim 34. Therefore, it is a moot issue whether or not
Lagrange reissue claim 34 is otherwise patentable to Lagrange. Accordingly, Konrad
Contingent Preliminary Motion 8 is MOOT.
Lagrange Motion to Suppress Evidence
Lagrange filed a motion to suppress evidence under 37 CFR § 1.656(h) (paper
no. 95, filed February 2, 1998). Lagrange seeks to suppress Höffkes Declaration I
(Konrad Exhibit 4) on the grounds that Hoffkes did not personally supervise the
synthesis of the indolines identified in the declaration and therefore the results are
inadmissible hearsay. An objection to the introduction of Hoffkes I was previously raised
71
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007