Interference 103,579
Figure 1 (VR 182) of the specification of Visser’s involved
application and the references of record cited thereat.
B. Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102)
To make a case for no interference-in-fact, Visser must show
that no claim in Visser’s’s involved application which is
designated as corresponding to the count defines the same
patentable invention as a claim in Hofvander’s involved
application which is designated as corresponding to the count.
37 CFR § 1.601(j). Accordingly, to show that no claim in
Visser’s’s involved application which is designated as
corresponding to the count defines the same patentable invention
as a claim in Hofvander’s involved application, Visser must show
that Visser’s claims designated as corresponding to the count are
directed to separate patentable inventions from Hofvander’s
claims designated as corresponding to the count. 37 CFR
§ 1.601(n). More specifically, if the preponderance of the
evidence of record shows either that the subject matter defined
by Visser’s claims designated as corresponding to the count is
not anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) by, or obvious (35 U.S.C.
§ 103) in view of, the subject matter defined by Hofvander’s
claims designated as corresponding to the count, or the subject
matter defined by Hofvander’s claims designated as corresponding
Biology, Second Edition, W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, N. Y.,
pp. 214-217 (1990)(Appendix C).
-77-
Page: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007