Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
In light of the foregoing, because of the existence of
Spears' claim 3 and Holland's claim 21, Spears has demonstrated
neither (1) that none of its claims corresponding to the count
would have been anticipated by or rendered obvious over any of
Holland's involved claims, or (2) that none of Holland's involved
claims corresponding to the count would have been anticipated by
or rendered obvious over any of Spears' own involved claims.
At least claim 3 of Spears and claim 21 of Holland interfere.
Spears' preliminary motion 4 alleging no interference-in
fact is denied.
B. Spears, Preliminary Motion 5
In this preliminary motion, junior party Spears seeks to
designate its claims 8-12 as not corresponding to the count. Per
37 CFR § 1.637(c)(4), a preliminary motion seeking to designate
an application or patent claim as not corresponding to a count
shall show that the claim does not define the same patentable
invention as any other claim whose designation in the notice
declaring the interference as corresponding to the count the
party does not dispute.
In paragraph 26(j) of the Standing order accompanying the
Notice Declaring Interference (Paper No. 1), however, it was
clarified that a moving party seeking to designate its own claims
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007