In Lee preliminary motion 2% Lee requests that van Engelen claims 5-9, 13-16, and 18-22
be designated as corresponding to the count (Paper 39). Lee has filed several preliminary
motions under 37 CFR § 1.633(a), seeking judgment against van Engelen on the ground that van
Engelen's involved claims 1-3 and 10-12, and claims 5-9, 13-16, and 18-22 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 40, 41, and 44). Lee has filed preliminary motion 5 seeking to be
accorded the benefit of earlier Lee applications. Lee has filed contingent preliminary motions to
(1) add claims 7-9 to its involved application (preliminary motion 9), (2) substitute the count
(preliminary motion 10), and (3) be accorded priority benefit as to the new count (preliminary
motion 11).
According to the junior party van Engelen's preliminary statement, van Engelen does not
allege a date that is earlier than the senior party Lee's effective filing date.
Oral argument was held on 29 April 2003. During oral argument counsel for van Engelen
withdrew van Engelen preliminary motion 3 (Paper 129 at 84, line 25 to page 86, line 2).
For the reasons that follow, van Engelen preliminary motions 1, 2, 4, and 8 are denied.
Van Engelen preliminary motion 6 is grante . Lee preliminary motion 2 is granted. Van
Engelen preliminary motions 3, 5, 7, 9-12, and Lee preliminary motions 3-12 are dismissed, and
judgment is entered against van Engelen.
B. Findings of fact
1. Van Engelen is involved on the basis of Patent 5,844,666 ('666), granted I December
1998, based on application 08/642,014, filed 2 May 1996.
Lee miscellaneous motion 1 to disqualify van Engelen's counsel was denied (Paper 34).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007