Interference 103,685
June 26, 1998 - Holsten filed “Memorandum of Senior Party
Holsten et al. in Opposition to Opening Brief of Riggins et al.”
(HOB)(Paper No. 124).
July 17, 1998 - Riggins filed “Riggins et al.’s Reply Brief
to Holsten et al.’s Opposition to Riggins et al.’s Opening Brief”
(RRB)(Paper No. 125).
July 17, 1998 - Holsten filed “Reply Brief of Senior Party
Holsten et al.” (HRB)(Paper No. 126).
October 15, 2001 - Final Hearing
2. Issues presented at final hearing
A. Issues raised under 37 CFR § 1.641
In the Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed June 6, 1997
(Paper No. 83, pp. 63-73), the subject matter of Holsten’s and/or
Riggins’ product claims designated as corresponding to Count 2
was determined to be prima facie unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102/103 over Minemura and Yamada, U.S. 3,953,167, issued
April 27, 1976, (2) Soiron and Keller, U.S. 4,066,395, issued
January 3, 1978, (3) Cates and Fitzgerald, U.S. 4,710,200, issued
December 1, 1987, (4) Cates, Davis, Fitzgerald and Davis, U.S.
4,759,770, issued July 26, 1988, or (5) White, Ensley and Dalton,
U.S. 4,780,105, issued October 25, 1988. The subject matter of
Holsten’s product claims designated as corresponding to Count 2
was determined also to be prima facie unpatentable under
-25-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007