Interference No. 103,570
the subject matter of Hubbard claim 21; (2) Hubbard claim 21 and
each of the claims depending from it define inventions separately
patentable from Hubbard claim 46 (and its dependent claims) and
Wallace claim 1 (and its dependent claims), viz., should be
designated as not corresponding to the count; and (3) Wallace is
entitled to an award of priority with respect to a count which
embraces only the subject matter of Wallace claim 1 and Hubbard
claim 46.
With the foregoing as prologue, the fundamental issue before
us for consideration is whether the APJ was correct in holding
that the Hubbard motion to redesignate claims as not
corresponding to the count should be denied with respect to
claims 21-23, 25-34, 36-37, 39, and 41-45.
Hubbard has presented a record (HR-) which includes
previously submitted exhibits, filed a brief (HB-) and appeared,
through counsel, at final hearing. In view of the agreement
between the parties as to the disposition of this interference
(Paper No. 111), Wallace had no need to file, and did not file, a
brief for final hearing.
No issue of interference-in-fact has been raised in this
proceeding.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007