Interference 103,685
4. The claims not corresponding to Count 2 are:
Riggins et al. application: None
Holsten et al. application: None
Holsten et al. patent: None[.]
The Memorandum Opinion and Order also included a Notice
under 37 CFR § 1.641 addressing the patentability of the parties’
claimed fibrous materials prepared by processes employing
particular aromatic amide swelling agents over prior art fibrous
materials prepared by processes employing other swelling agents
or no swelling agent (Paper No. 83, pp. 63-73). The following
Order issued therefrom (Paper No. 83, pp. 72-73):
ORDERED that, on this record, the product claims
designated as corresponding to Count 2 are deemed to be
prima facie unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103.
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 15, 1997,
the parties may respond to this notice under 35 U.S.C.
§ 1.641 [sic, 37 CFR § 1.641].
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 31, 1997,
any responses will be reviewed and the results of that
review communicated to the parties.
July 15, 1997 - A “Memorandum Opinion and Order” was entered
which (Paper No. 86):
FURTHER ORDERED that the patentability of all
product claims designated as corresponding to the count
will be determined at final hearing on the basis of the
responses to the notice under 37 CFR § 1.641 and any
evidence which accompanies those responses.
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007