Interference 103,579
(Visser’s Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper No. 17)), because none of
Visser’s claims designated as corresponding to Count 1 are
directed to the same patentable invention as any of Hofvander’s
claims designated as corresponding to Count 1 (Paper No. 17,
p. 2, para. 2)(GRANTED);
We deny Visser’s Preliminary Motion No. 2 under 37 CFR
§ 1.633(a) for judgment that Claims 1, 4, and 6 to 23 of
Hofvander’s involved application, filed November 24, 1993,
designated as corresponding to the count, are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Hergersberg (VDX 1), and/or under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Hergersberg and van
der Leij (VDX 3)(Paper No. 18)(DENIED);
Visser’s Preliminary Motion No. 3 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
for judgment that Hofvander’s Claims 1, 4, 6-20, and 22 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Paper
No. 19) stands dismissed (DISMISSED);
We dismiss Visser’s contingent Preliminary Motion 4 under
37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment that Hofvander’s Claims 1, 4,
and 6-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Visser’s
1991 publication (VDX 8)(Visser’s Preliminary Motion No. 4 (Paper
No. 20)) as contingent on denial of Visser’s Preliminary Motion
No. 1 (Paper No. 17))(DISMISSED).
-123-
Page: Previous 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007