substantially rigid telescoping tube;
wherein said substantially rigid tube is disposed with
said elastomeric tube; and
said elasotomeric tube is disposed within said
substantially rigid telescoping tube; and,
whereby the inner diameter of said elastomeric tube is
selectively varied in direct proportion to said desired
length of said substantially rigid telescoping tube.
6. In the Order to Show Cause, the administrative patent
judge designated to handle this interference, determined that
Sever’s showing submitted under 37 CFR § 1.608(b) was
insufficient to demonstrate that Sever is prima facie entitled to
judgment relative to Glickman.
7. Specifically, it was determined that:
(A) Sever failed to allege or establish an actual
reduction to practice that is prior to the Glickman
effective filing date (Paper 2 at 4);
(B) For purposes of priority, Sever sufficiently
demonstrated that Sever conceived of the invention sometime
prior to Glickman’s 2 September 1997 filing date (Paper 2 at
5);
5);(C) Sever failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it
exercised reasonable diligence from a time prior to
Glickman’s 2 September 1997 filing date to its own reduction
to practice (Paper 2 at 5-6); and
(D) Sever failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
Glickman had derived the invention from Sever since (Paper 2
at 6-7):
(1) Sever failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007