Interference No. 104,482
Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja
(against Doroodian’s claims 1-6); (4) U.S. Patent No. 5,113,585
to Rogers et al. in view of U.S. patent No. 2,703,451 to Hensel
(against Doroodian’s claims 1-6); and (5) Sensor For Women inŽ
view of U.S. Patent No. 2,703,451 to Hensel (against Doroodian’s
claims 1-6).
29. Tseng’s preliminary motion 5 is entitled: “TSENG
CONTINGENT PRELIMINARY MOTION 5" and states the following:
This motion only need be considered if Doroodian’s
anticipated motions based on no interference-in-fact
and 35 U.S.C. § 135(b), as well as Tseng Preliminary
Motions 2, 3 and 4 (based on invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs), are all denied.
In that event, Tseng requests consideration of this
motion.
30. In its principal brief (Paper No. 86), party Tseng
withdrew its still pending preliminary motions 2-4.
31. The only preliminary motion of party Tseng which still
remains pending is Tseng’s contingent preliminary motion 5.
Discussion
Party Tseng’s preliminary motion 5 is contingent on a number
of circumstances including the denial of Doroodian’s preliminary
motion 1 asserting no interference-in-fact. In Paper No. 85,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007