Interference No. 104,158
effective as of the date of publication, viz., March 16, 1999.
Accordingly, the review of the APJ’s decision on the
preliminary motions has been decided in the following decision
without deference to the prior decision by the lone APJ.
Patentability of Oldroyd claims 9-28
Althaus has moved for judgment under 37 CFR §
1.633(a) that claims 9 through 28 of Oldroyd are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is noted that the parties are in
agreement that, under this motion for judgment, Oldroyd claims
10-28 will stand or fall with Oldroyd independent claim 9.
See Oldroyd Brief at 29.
Althaus argues that these claims 9-28 are
unpatentable over the combined teachings of the following
references:
Terry et al. (Terry) 1,460,732 Jan. 6,
1977
(British patent)
Kirk 2,116,470 Sept. 28,
1983
(British patent)
Ishida 61-54433 Nov. 21,
1986
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007