is no interference-in-fact (Paper 16). We GRANT the
preliminary motion and enter final judgment.
A. Findings of fact
The record supports, by a preponderance of the evidence,
the following findings, as well as any findings set out in the
discussion portion of this ORDER.
1. The count of the interference is the process defined
by claim 1 of the Davey patent (US 5,554,517 ("'517")) or the
process defined by claim 1 of the Burg application (08/427,606
("606")(Paper 1 at 5).
2. The Davey patent contains claims 1-15.
3. The Burg application contains claims 1-3 and 11-63.
4. Davey claims 1-5, 8, and 11-15 are designated as
corresponding to the count (Paper 1 at 5).
5. All of the Burg claims are designated as
corresponding to the count (Paper 1 at 5).
6. The process of Davey claim 1 and the process of Burg
claim 1 appear to be the same except that the process of Davey
claim 1 requires that the process defined therein be
undertaken "at a relatively constant temperature and without
serial addition of reagents" ('517 at claim 1).
7. Davey claims 2 to 10 depend, either directly or
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007