Interference No. 104,785
Page No. 2
Paper No. 24, p. 1). Furthermore, upon entry of the proposed amendments, both parties have
expressed a belief that no interference-in-fact would exist between the parties. (Paper No. 24, p.
1 and Order Setting Times, Paper No. 26, p. 2).
I. Goodall Proposed Amendment
At the time of declaration of the interference, Goodall’s claims were generally directed to
photoresist compositions comprising a photoacid initiator and a polymer comprising polycyclic
repeating units polymerized from maleimide(s) wherein at least a portion of the polycyclic
repeating units contained pendant acid labile groups. (Goodall Clean copy of Claims, Paper No.
12, claim 1). The polymer having the pendant acid labile groups could be formed by a ring-
opening polymerization process. (Paper No. 12, e.g., claims 3 and 4).
Goodall has requested entry of a Proposed Amendment (Paper No. 27). The Proposed
Amendment requests cancellation of Goodall claims 3-4 and 17-22 and amendment of Goodall
claims 1, 25, 39, 40 and 47-49. The proposed amendment to claim 1 would limit the acid labile
group containing polymers of claim 1 to “addition” polymers. (Paper No. 27). Goodall claim
38, the only other pending independent Goodall claim, already appears limited to acid labile
group containing polymers formed by an addition polymerization process. Further, the claims to
be cancelled by Goodall’s proposed amendment, Goodall’s claims 3-4 and 17-22, are generally
directed towards compositions containing polymers that are formed via ring-opening
polymerization. As such, upon entry of Goodall’s Proposed Amendment, Goodall’s claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007