Interference No. 103,570
Opinion
Of all the Hubbard claims in dispute, claim 21 is the sole
independent claim. Accordingly, we shall focus our remarks upon
that claim.3
Upon reevaluating the entire record in light of the position
taken by Hubbard in his brief, we agree with Hubbard that claim
21, and all the claims which depend on it, define a separate
patentable invention within the context of 37 CFR § 1.601(n) from
all the other claims of both parties corresponding to the count.
Accordingly, this interference is being redeclared to indicate
that, of the pending Hubbard claims, only claims 46-50 correspond
to the count while claims 21-23, 25-34, 36-37, 39 and 41-45 are
redesignated as not corresponding to the count. Consistent with
this view, the count is being reformulated to exclude the subject
matter of Hubbard claim 21.
Specifically, we agree with Hubbard that the prior art
references relied upon by the APJ in the supplemental decision on
motions (Paper No. 101), taken in combination with Wallace claims
1-16 and Hubbard claims 46-50 (the parties’ involved claims which
3We find it unnecessary to reproduce claim 21 at this point
in our decision inasmuch as it appears earlier in our decision as
part “(b)” of count 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007