sensing member and a biasing member for biasing the valve sealing
member to a closed position, where the sprinkler head sensing
member holds the valve sealing member in the open condition when
the sprinkler head is sensed by the sprinkler head sensing member
(Moore Ex. 2009, claims 1 and 4-10).
23. No one of Sundholm’s claims 6, 10, 13, 14 and 17-24
recite, in combination, a valve sealing member connected to a
sprinkler head sensing member and a biasing member for biasing
the valve to a closed position (Moore Ex. 2004 and Moore Ex.
2017).
C. Discussion
Moore and Sundholm jointly move under 37 CFR § 1.633(b) for
no interference-in-fact between any one of Moore’s claims 1-10
and any one of Sundholm’s claims 6, 10, 13, 14 and 17-24. As
stated in the 4 April 2002 order (Paper 77), the parties need
demonstrate that (1) no one claim of Sundholm anticipates or
renders obvious a claim of Moore or (2) no one claim of Moore
anticipates or renders obvious a claim of Sundholm.
Moore and Sundholm seek to demonstrate that no one claim or
Sundholm anticipates or renders obvious a claim of Moore (Paper
80 at 9). The joint preliminary motion sets forth the
differences between Sundholm’s claims and Moore’s claims and
sufficiently demonstrates that no one of Sundholm’s claims
anticipates any one of Moore’s claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007