Interference 103,685
practical utility of the claimed product. Accordingly, in light
of all the evidence now of record, it is:
ORDERED that the action taken in this interference under
37 CFR § 1.641 is withdrawn; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Preliminary Motion No. 9 (Paper No. 99)
under 37 CFR 1.633(c) seeking to redefine the interfering subject
matter by cancelling Claims 79 and 81 designated as corresponding
to Count 2 without prejudice, adding proposed new Claims 82-85,
and designating new Claims 82-85 as corresponding to Count 2,
which was filed by Riggins in response to action taken in this
interference under 37 CFR § 1.641, now withdrawn, is dismissed.
B. Priority of the invention defined by Count 2
(1) Preliminary matters
Holsten argues that, to establish priority for the invention
defined by Count 2 of this interference, Riggins not only must
show that it was first to reduce an embodiment of a claim of
Riggins’ involved application corresponding to the count, but
Riggins also must show that it contemporaneously conceived of
the full scope of the invention defined in Riggins’ involved
application and its claims. For example, Holsten argues
(Memorandum of Senior Party Holsten et al. in Opposition to
Opening Brief of Riggins et al., Paper No. 124, pages 3-4 (HOB,
pp. 3-4):
-35-
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007