Patent Interference No. 103,548
APPENDIX 4
The Parties' Statements of the Issues (reproduced verbatim from the
parties' briefs) are:
· Lagrange (see LB 10-11)
· "The first issue before the Board at Final Hearing on which Lagrange
has the burden of proof is whether claim 29 of Lagrange '637 and claims 1-
21, 24-26 and 29 of the Lagrange reissue application correspond to a count,
i.e., whether Lagrange has satisfied their burden of proof in showing that the
Lagrange invention is not anticipated by the Konrad invention." [LI1]
· "The second issue before the Board at Final Hearing on which Lagrange
has the burden of proof is whether claim 29 of Lagrange '637 and claims 1-
21, 24-26 and 29 of the Lagrange reissue application correspond to a count,
i.e., whether Lagrange has satisfied its burden of proof in showing that the
Lagrange invention is not obvious over the Konrad invention taken together
with other prior art." [LI2]
· Konrad (see KB 1-3)
· "Whether Lagrange's claim 22 or Lagrange's reissue claim 22 is obvious
from Lagrange's claim 1 and/or Konrad's claims 4-7 in view of Grollier '500,
Parent '404 and/or French '061 and therefore defines the same patentable
invention as Count 2?" [KI1]
· "Whether uptake, ∆E, is a property to rely on to establish unexpected
superior results when this property was not disclosed in either Lagrange's or
Konrad's specifications?" [KI2]
· "Whether the results in Mr. Cotteret's Declaration II actually establish
unexpected superior results for Lagrange's claim 22?" [KI3]
· "Whether Lagrange's claim 23 or reissue claim 23 is obvious from
Lagrange's claim 1 and/or Konrad's claims 4-7 in view of Grollier '500, Parent
'404 and/or French '061 and therefore defines the same patentable invention
as Count 2?" [KI4]
· "Whether Lagrange is now entitled to reissue claim 30, which is almost
literally identical to Lagrange's original claim 4, when Lagrange never argued
for separate patentability of Lagrange's original claim 4 under 37 CFR
1.633(c)(4)?" [KI5]
· "Whether Lagrange's reissue claim 30 is obvious from Lagrange's claims
1 and 4 and/or Konrad's claims 4-7 in view of Goldemberg or Goldemberg et
al. and therefore defines the same patentable invention as Count 2?" [KI6]
· "Whether Lagrange has tested enough examples to establish
unexpected superior results for reissue claim 30 when it has only tested the
unsubstituted 5,6 dihydroxyindoline hydrobromide (claim 30 specifies
unsubstituted or C1-C4 substituted 5,6-dihydroxyindoline in the free form or
salt form) at one percent (claim 30 specifies from 0.01 to 8%) in a
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007