Interference No. 104,186
In view of the above decision, this proceeding is being redeclared in an
accompanying paper with count 1 substituted for count 2.
We are further of the opinion that Juliano claim 13 should not have been
added to this proceeding as a corresponding claim. Juliano's claim 13 includes the
term "said spring being a coil spring having a spring projection at each end thereof
which extends radially inward relative to the main central portion of the spring", and
count 1 and the corresponding claims recite "said spring being a coil spring having
the end coil on each end thereof being of reduced diameter as compared to the
main central portion of the spring". It was not established by evidence from the prior
art that claim 13 defines the same patentable invention as the count. 37 CFR
§ 1.737(c)(2)(ii). Whereas Juliano did not establish by evidence or convincing
argument that the invention of claim 13 is the same patentable invention as the
count by showing that the invention of claim 13 is obvious over the invention of
count 1 assuming the invention of count 1 is prior art with respect to the invention of
claim 13 (37 CIFIR § 1.601(n)), claim 13 does not correspond to count 1.
The accompanying redeclaration will show that Juliano's claim 13 has been
deleted as a corresponding claim.
Whereas Juliano's only remaining claims 10-12 are unpatentable to Juliano,
our above decision is dispositive of this case and we need not discuss Cleveland's
case for priority.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007