consideration is whether Rohrmann claim 5 should be designated as
corresponding to Count 2. To that end, Alt has filed Alt
Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 19) seeking to have Rohrmann claim 5
designated as corresponding to Count 2. Rohrmann filed an
opposition (Paper 20).
B. Facts
1. The interference was initially declared with
Count 1 (Paper 1, page 5).
2. Rohrmann claim 5 was designated as not
corresponding to the count, then Count 1 (Paper 1, page 5).
3. As a result of an amendment filed by Alt, and
which was entered by the board (37 CFR § 1.615(a)), there came a
time when the interference was redeclared to substitute Count 2
for original Count 1 (Paper 18).
4. Count 2 reads as follows (Paper 18, page 4):
Count 2
A method according to claim 6 of Rohrmann patent
5,391,789,
or
a method according to any of claims 78 and 90 and 96
of Alt application 09/197,761.
5. The claims of the parties are:
Rohrmann: 1-18
Alt '761: 42, 46, 48-49, 51-53, 78-83 and
90-101
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007