Interference No. 104,190
time of the test. This design was unsuccessful and deserved
to be retired.
Legal Conclusion re Junior Party Priority Case
It is our legal determination, based upon the above
recited facts, that the conception and testing of the PX-10
device is not a conception or reduction to practice of the
subject matter at issue in this interference. We base this
conclusion on the fact that the cutting surface or stainless
steel insert cannot be said to be “said first metal blade
supporting an insulative layer on a surface other than the
cutting edge and shearing surface thereof and an electrically
conductive electrode member on the insulative layer,” as we
have construed those terms based on the intrinsic evidence of
the prosecution history of the Parins patent. As discussed
previously, this language was inserted in Claim 1 of the
Parins application to avoid the Rydell prior art patent and
resulted in allowance of that application. A broad claim
construction as urged by the junior party has been disclaimed
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007