Interference No. 104,805
Page No. 3
[A] good working understanding of the literature and industry practices forming
public knowledge concerning the recovery of bicarbonates from aqueous
solutions, especially, Nahcolite deposits (a representative teaching is found in
another of Roger Day's patents U.S. 4,815,790).
(Wameke Dec. 17). We conclude that Mr. Wameke is qualified to testify as to the expectations
and knowledge that one skilled in this art would possess.
Mr. Wameke has testified that:
20. 1 have canvassed my recollection of the prior art at the time of the Day
application, and know of no teaching or suggestion of the invention recited in the
Day claims; nor do I know of any report of the unexpected use of the claimed
recitations in the recovery of sodium bicarbonate with controlled classification
from pregnant Nalicolite solutions;
21. Specifically I am unaware of any prior art that when taken with the '419 or '622
claims, would render obvious to [one of] ordinary skill in the art the invention of
the Day claims.
(Wameke Dec., ıı 20-2 1).
Mr. Warneke's declaration is unchallenged. Based on Mr. Warneke's declarations, we
conclude that Day claims 3, 5-9, 11-13 and 63-70 are patentably distinct from the subject matter
of Counts I or 2 or the undisputed corresponding claims and Larsen. As such, we grant Day
Motion 1.
As Junior Party Day has cancelled all of the corresponding claims ftom the involved '456
Day application, we conclude that Junior Party Day has abandoned the contest. 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.662. Having abandoned the contest, we terminate this interference and remand the involved
'456 Day application to the examiner for further consideration.
The examiner shall review the papers listed above, and if deficient, provide sufficient
notice to Day as to the specific deficiencies. Moreover, the examiner shall review the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007