Interference No. 104,482
Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja
granting senior party Doroodian’s preliminary motion 1 asserting
no interference-in-fact and denying junior party Tseng’s
preliminary motion 1 to add more claims to its involved
application. On the subject of interference-in-fact, we found
that Doroodian had shown that its involved claims are patentably
distinct from the involved claims of Tseng. Thus, parties
Doroodian and Tseng do not claim the same patentable invention.
Neither party has requested reconsideration of our
decision of October 16, 2001.
In our decision, we also ordered parties Doroodian and Tseng
to brief the issue of whether, in light of our holding of no
interference-in-fact, we should reach Tseng’s preliminary motions
2-5 for judgment against Doroodian’s involved patent claims. The
parties have each filed a principal brief and a reply brief.
Findings of Fact
Numbered findings 1-22 are contained in our decision of
October 16, 2001. In this opinion, we begin with numbered
finding 23.
23. Tseng’s preliminary motion 2 is for judgment against
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007