Interference No. 103,906
for the show cause order, as well as to review the APJ’s denial
of Dionne’s preliminary motion nos. 2, 5 and 6. See Paper Nos.
94 and 99. However, the matters raised in the parties’ briefs
only relate to Liotta’s preliminary motion no. 1.
Accordingly, the sole issue before us for consideration is
whether Liotta has established by a preponderance of evidence
that Dionne’s involved claims are unpatentable for lack of
enablement, or for lack of utility.3
Each of the parties has presented a record, submitted
exhibits, filed briefs and appeared, through counsel, at final
hearing.4
No issue of interference-in-fact has been raised in this
proceeding.
Opinion
With respect to the enablement issue, Dionne’s claim 1 is
representative of the claims in dispute and, therefore, is
reproduced here for convenient reference:
3We find it unnecessary to separately address the lack of
utility issue since, in our opinion, Liotta has established that
Dionne’s claims are unpatentable for lack of enablement.
4Records, exhibits, briefs and reply brief will be
respectively referred to in our decision, as appropriate, by the
abbreviations R, X, B and RB, preceded by a letter representing
the name of the submitting party (D or L), and followed by a
pertinent page or exhibit number.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007