Interference No. 103,635
priority and statement of the issues taken from the parties’ briefs.
Motions
Scott
SM1 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a) for judgment against Koyama on the ground that
Koyama claim 7 corresponding to the Count is not patentable to Koyama because
Koyama has failed to satisfy the best mode requirement of 35 USC § 112, first
paragraph. (filed June 3, 1996; paper no. 22)
Statement of the Issues
Scott’s and Koyama’s statements of the issues are reproduced verbatim from their
briefs.
Scott (SB 1)
SI1 Is Scott et al entitled to a priority award by showing introduction of the invention into
the United States before March 13, 1990 with diligence from just before that date up
to constructive reduction to practice by the filing of the Scott et al U.K. application on
March 29, 1990?
SI2 Is Scott et al entitled to a priority award by showing introduction of the invention into
the United States before March 13, 1990 with diligence from just before that date up
to actual reduction to practice by the construction and operation of a plant using the
process at issue in the U.S. by the end of December, [sic] 1992?
SI3 Is the introduction of the Scott et al invention into the United States prior to March
13, 1990 in and of itself so complete as to constitute an actual reduction to practice
entitling Scott et al to a priority award when the process was actually reduced to
practice in the U.K. specifically for use in a plant to be built in the U.S., and the
process as introduced into the U.S. was directly transposed into commercial use in
that U.S. plant?
SI4 Has Koyama et al satisfied the best mode requirement of 35 USC §112, first
paragraph?
(paper no. 24).
In the Decision on Motions (paper no. 47), Scott preliminary motion 1 was deferred to final hearing, Scott
preliminary motions 2, 3, and 5 were denied, and Scott preliminary motion 4 was granted. Scott (SB 5)
states that it does not intend to pursue the issues raised by Scott preliminary motions 2, 3, and 5. Issues
not raised in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned. Photis v. Lukenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat.
Int. 1984). Accordingly, we only consider Scott motion 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007