Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
and 41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) (Paper 60).
Jurgenson has filed a preliminary motion 2 under 37 CFR
§ 1.633(b) on the ground that there is no interference-in-fact,
which is contingent on its preliminary motion 1 (Paper 61).
Dunfield has filed a preliminary motion 3 to add claims 42-
46 to Dunfield’s involved application (Paper 22). In Dunfield
preliminary motion 2, Dunfield moves to add counts 3, 4 and 5 and
to designate certain ones of Jurgenson’s claims and Dunfield
claims 42-46 as corresponding to proposed counts 3-5 (Paper 21).
Dunfield has filed a preliminary motion 4 to be accorded the
benefit of its earlier filed application 08/438,091 contingent
upon adding proposed counts 3-5 (Paper 23).
Additionally, Dunfield seeks to designate several Jurgenson
claims as corresponding to the count, while seeking to have
several of those claims held to be unpatentable as follows:
1) Dunfield preliminary motion 1 under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(3)
to designate Jurgenson claims 5-16 and 18 as corresponding to
count 2, or alternatively to designate Jurgenson claims 5-16 and
18 as corresponding to proposed counts 3-5;
2) Dunfield preliminary motion 5 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for
judgment against Jurgenson on the grounds that Jurgenson claims
8 and 11-13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph;
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007