judgment against Lee on the ground that Lee claims 4-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
11 for lack of written description support for certain claim terms, or alternatively that claims 4-6
are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 12, or that there is no interference-in-fact (Papers 46 and
47). Van Engelen has filed a preliminary motion 3 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) forjudgment
against Lee on the ground that Lee claims 4-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 11 for
failing to provide an enabling disclosure for those claims (Paper 48). Through its preliminary
motion 8, van Engelen attacks the benefit granted Lee (Paper 53). Van Engelen, through its
preliminary motion 6, moves for benefit of an earlier van Engelen European application (Paper
51).
Through its preliminary motion 4, Van Engelen seeks to undesignate its claim 12 and Lee
claim 5 from corresponding to the count (Paper 49). Contingent upon the granting of that
motion, through its preliminary motion 5, van Engelen seeks to add to the interference a count 2
(Paper 50). Van Engelen moves for benefit of proposed count 2 (Paper 52, preliminary motion
7), and moves to deny Lee benefit of its earlier applications with respect to count 2 (Paper 54,
preliminary motion 9). Lee preliminary motions 8 and 12 (Papers 64 and 68) are also ultimately
contingent on the granting of van Engelen preliminary motion 4.
Lee filed preliminary motion 6 (Paper 51), for judgment against van Engelen on the
ground that van Engelen claim 12 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ý 2. Van Engelen filed
three responsive motions; miscellaneous motion 10 for entry of a certificate of correction for its
claim 12 (Paper 62), preliminary motion I I to file a reissue application to correct the error in
claim 12 (Paper 61 1/2), and preliminary motion 12 for benefit of an earlier application for its
reissue application (Paper 62 Y2).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007