Interference No. 104,482
Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja
24. Tseng’s preliminary motion 3 is for judgment against
Doroodian’s patent claims 1-6 for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
25. Tseng’s preliminary motion 4 is for judgment against
Doroodian’s patent claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of written description in the specification.
26. Tseng’s preliminary motion 5 for judgment against
claims 1-6 of Doroodian’s patent claims 1-6 as being unpatentable
over prior art.
27. The prior art asserted by Tseng against Doroodian for
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are: (1) U.S. Patent No.
4,170,821 to Booth (against Doroodian’s claim 1); (2) U.S. Patent
No. 4,562,644 to Hitchens (against Doroodian’s claims 1-4 and 6);
(3) U.S. Patent No. 5,113,585 to Rogers et al. (against
Doroodian’s claims 1 and 2); and (4) Sensor For Women cartridgeŽ
(a commercial product, against Doroodian’s claims 1 and 2).
28. The prior art asserted by Tseng against Doroodian for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are: (1) U.S. Patent No.
3,879,844 to Griffith in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,703,451 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007