Interference 103,579
Hofvander had not shown its entitlement to benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of the filing date of Hofvander’s Swedish
application for the full scope of the subject matter claimed
(Paper No. 74, pp. 8-9). In denying Hofvander’s claim for
priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119, the decision read (Paper
No. 74, p. 9):
It is evident . . . that the Swedish priority
document contains a written description for the
fragment having a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID
No. 1. Since the Hofvander claims embrace this
fragment and other fragments, Hofvander is not
entitled to the benefit of the Swedish priority
document with respect to claims 1, 4, and 6 to 23.
Judgment against these claims will be entered when
a final judgment is entered in this case. The
Swedish priority document only supports the full
scope of claim 24 . . . .
(5) Hofvander’s Preliminary Motions 1 (HPM 1)(Paper
No. 28) and 7 (HPM 7)(Paper No. 67) to substitute Proposed
Count H-1 (as amended) and 3 (HPM 3)(Paper No. 30) to accord
Hofvander benefit of the December 21, 1990, foreign filing
date of Hofvander’s Swedish application for corrected
Proposed Count H-1, were granted (Paper No. 74).
(6) Hofvander’s Preliminary Motion 2 (HPM 2)(Paper
No. 29) to add Claim 24 Hofvander’s involved application,
filed November 24, 1993, to the interference as renumbered
Claim 50 (Paper No. 77) was granted (Paper No. 74, p. 11).
The same motion to amend other claims and to add to the
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007