Interference 103,579
March 1, 1999 - Visser filed “Visser Request To Add
Hofvander’s Patent To Interference Pursuant To 37 CFR § 1.642
(Paper No. 141).
July 18, 2001 - Final Oral Hearing.
2. Interference-in-fact
We consider first Visser’s Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper
No. 17) under 37 CFR § 1.633(b) for judgment that there is no
interference-in-fact because none of Visser’s claims designated
as corresponding to the count is directed to the “same
patentable invention” as any of Hofvander’s claims designated
as corresponding to the count (Paper No. 17, p. 2, para. 2).6
Visser’s “motion for judgment on the ground that there is no
interference-in-fact . . . is proper . . . [since] no claim of a
party which corresponds to a count is identical to any claim of
an opponent which corresponds to that count. See § 1.637(a)”
6 We will consider the merits of Hofvander’s motion to
suppress (Paper No. 123) only to the extent we rely upon the
evidence to which Hofvander objects (1) in concluding there
exists no interference-in-fact between subject matter claimed in
Visser’s application and subject matter claimed in Hofvander’s
application and patent, or (2) in deciding unrelated preliminary
motions after having concluded that there exists an interference-
in-fact between subject matter claimed in Visser’s involved
application and subject matter claimed in Hofvander’s involved
application. Should we conclude that that no interference-in-
fact exists between subject matter claimed in Visser’s involved
application and subject matter claimed in Hofvander’s involved
application, other preliminary or miscellaneous motions filed in
this interference will be entertained only to the extent justice
requires (37 CFR § 1.655 (c).
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007