A. Introduction
This interference was declared on April 17, 2002. Van Engelen has filed preliminary
motions 1-3 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) forjudgment against Lee on the ground that Lee claims 2
and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 11 for lack of written description support for
certain claim terms, or alternatively that claims 2 and 8 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, T 2,
or that there is no interference-in-fact (Papers 41-43). Van Engelen has filed a preliminary
motion 4 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) forjudgment against Lee on the ground that Lee claims 2 and
8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, T I for failing to provide an enabling disclosure for
those claims (Paper 44). Van Engelen has filed a preliminary motion 6, attacking the benefit
accorded Lee (Paper 46). Van Engelen has also filed preliminary motion 5 for judgment against
Lee on the ground that Lee claims 2 and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), based on
an on sale bar (Paper 45).
In Lee preliminary motion 2% Lee requests that van Engelen claims 4, 7 and 10 be
designated as corresponding to the count (Paper 36). Lee has filed three preliminary motions
(preliminary motions 3, 5 and 6) under 37 CFR § 1.633(a), seeking judgment against van
Engelen on the ground that all of van Engelen's involved claims and claims 4, 7 and 10 that Lee
seeks to designate as corresponding to the count are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
based on various prior art (Papers 37, 39 and 40). Lee has filed preliminary motion 4 seeking to
be accorded the benefit of one earlier, and two subsequently filed Lee applications (Paper 38).
Lee has filed contingent preliminary motions to (1) add claims 9-18 to its involved application
and to designate those claims as corresponding to the count (Paper 55), (2) substitute a count for
Lee miscellaneous motion I to disqualify van Engelen's counsel was denied (Paper 3 1).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007