Interference No. 104,314
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Before SCHAFER, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Introduction
This is a decision on the issue of priority. As will be explained below, junior party Sauer
has failed to demonstrate priority of invention. On even date herewith, and in a separate paper,
we are granting Sauer's motion 20 forjudgment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) against the sole claim,
claim 10, of senior party Kanzaki corresponding to the count. Entry of judgment against both
parties is now appropriate.
Findin2s of Fac
1. Eight related interferences, including this one, were declared on February 16, 2000,
Interference Nos. 104,311 through 104,316 and 104,496 and 104,497.
2. The same Kanzaki application 08/818,964, is involved in each of the eight related
interferences.
3. The involved Kanzaki application contains eight essentially copied claims 7-14, one
from each of eight different issued patents ofjunior party Sauer.
4. Each of Sauer's eight different patents is involved in a separate interference with the
same Kanzaki application.
5. In this interference, claim 10 is the only Kanzaki claim which corresponds to the
count, and the corresponding Sauer claim, claim 1, is the only Sauer claim which corresponds to
the count.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007