Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 39
insufficient as written description, for purposes of establishing priority of invention, to provide a
specification that does not unambiguously describe all limitations of the count." Id.
Zhou's arguments in support of Zhou Preliminary Motion 3 and Keagy's opposition are
predominantly the same as those presented above with respect to Zhou Preliminary Motion 2,
which requests judgment that Keagy's corresponding claims lack written description and/or are
indefinite. Based on the facts presented to us we have determined that Keagy's corresponding
claims are supported by Keagy's '744 specification. In particular, Keagy claim I is identical to
Count I and is supported by the '744 specification. As recognized by Zhou, "the disclosure of
the '744 application is identical to that of the '418 parent application, and also to that of the '098
grandparent application." (Paper No. 26, p. 2, 12). Zhou has not sufficiently explained why we
should determine that Keagy describes all the elements and limitation of Count I in the involved
'744 application but not in the "identical" '418 and '098 disclosures. As the '744 specification
contains an "identical" disclosure to that of the '418 application and the '098 application, it
appears that the '418 application and '098 application also support Keagy claim 1, which is
identical to Count 1.
Zhou, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof with respect to Zhou Preliminary
Motion 3. Zhou has failed to meet this burden. Zhou Preliminary Motion 3 is denied.
E. Zhou Preliminary Motion 4 to Designate Zhou Claims 14-17 and 28 as Not
Corresponding to Count I
Zhou Preliminary Motion 4 requests that the interfering subject matter be redefined by
designating Zhou claims 14-17 and 28 as not corresponding to Count 1. (Zhou Preliminary
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007