upon the granting of van Engelen preliminary motion 4 to undesignate van Engelen claim 12 and
Lee claim 5 from corresponding to the count. Since Van Engelen preliminary motion 4 is denied,
van Engelen preliminary motions 5, 7 and 9, and Lee preliminary motions 8 and 12 are
dismissed.
Van EnRelen preliminM motion 6
Through its preliminary motion 6, van Engelen moves for benefit of European
Application No. 95201409.0 (EP '409), filed 30 May 1995. At the outset, we note that even if
van Engelen preliminary motion 6 is granted, that the 30 May 1995 EP '409 application date is
subsequent to Lee's benefit date of 4 April 1995. We further note, that in its preliminary
statement, the earliest date that van Engelen alleges is 30 May 1995.
The EP '409 application is nearly identical to the involved '666 van Engelen patent. As
pointed out by van Engelen in its motion, claim 10 of the EP '409 application is nearly identical
to, and describes all of the elements of the count, one alternative of which is van Engelen claim
10. Van Engelen further submits a chart in its discussion. The chart is a comparison between the
count and where in the EP '409 application each element of the count is described.
Lee opposes the granting of the motion primarily on the basis that van Engelen failed to
attach an appendix (claim chart) to its motion in accordance with § 21 of the Standing Order, and
that the certification accompanying the translation of the EP '409 application is fatally flawed.
Lee apparently does not oppose the preliminary motion on the merits. For example, Lee is silent
with respect to van Engelen's assertion that the translated claim 10 is nearly identical to the
count. In response to Lee's opposition, Van Engelen, in its reply, filed a corrected certification
and appendix (claim chart).
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007