Interference No. 103,891
inasmuch as Moorman must argue his priority case in his main
brief. In the second part, Moorman responds specifically to the
argument of Flanders respecting whether Moorman has shown a
reduction to practice of that portion of the count that requires
the analyte of interest in solulizible form to be part of the
positive control. As to the first part, it is entitled to no
consideration, whatsoever. For example, we will not consider the
work done in November argued at pages 4-7 of the surreply and
thereafter. This material is part of Moorman’s case-in-chief
and must be in the main brief to be entitled to consideration.
Additionally, any argument directed to the equivalence of
Moorman’s case-in-chief and Flanders’ case-in-chief was ripe for
argument in Moorman’s main brief and is not entitled to consider-
ation when presented in a surreply. This applies to section C.
of the surreply found on pages 7-10. Furthermore, on page 13,
Moorman offers a count construction. Moorman did not construe
the count in his main brief. This material will not be consid-
ered. As to the other part of the surreply, we will review these
specific arguments of Moorman when we consider Moorman’s priority
case.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007