Interference No. 103,830
broadened modified form as claim 24, and by requesting an interference with Pacholok. The
interference was declared on May 2, 1997 with count 1 corresponding exactly to Pacholok claim
1 and Hutmacher claim 23, and with count 2 corresponding exactly to Hutmacher claim 24.
During the period set for filing preliminary motions, Pacholok filed a preliminary motion
under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment on the grounds that Hutmacher’s claims 1-12, 14-16 and
23 are unpatentable to Hutmacher under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 (Paper No. 14). In that
period, Hutmacher filed a preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c )(4) to redefine the
interfering subject matter by designating its claims 5-12, 14-16, 20 and 21 as not corresponding
to either count 1 or count 2. In a Decision on Preliminary Motions dated June 7, 1999, the
motion of Pacholok was granted only to the extent that Hutmacher claim 23 was found not
supported by Hutmacher; the above motion of Hutmacher was deferred to final hearing.
Issues
In its brief, Pacholok presented the following issues:
1. Whether Pacholok was first to conceive the inventions defined in counts 1 and 2.
2. Whether Pacholok was first to reduce to practice the inventions defined in counts 1
and 2.
Hutmacher presented the following issues in its brief:
1. Whether the Administrative Patent Judge erred in holding that Hutmacher’s
specification fails to support its claim 23.
2. Whether Pacholok has proven a date of invention for count 1 earlier than the
July 11, 1994 filing date of Hutmacher.
3. Whether Pacholok has proven a date of invention for count 2 earlier than the
July 11, 1994 filing date of Hutmacher.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007