would demonstrate otherwise. In this regard, van Engelen's silence with respect to the '558
application is fatal to its motion.
Since van Engelen has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the benefit accorded Lee at
the time the interference was declared was in error, we need not consider van Engelen's
arguments that its PCT application, WO 96/38767, filed on 5 December 1996 is prior art to Lee.
Lee has been accorded the benefit of the '558 application, filed 4 April 1995, which is prior to
van Engelen's PCT date.
For all of the above reasons, van Engelen, through its preliminary motion 8, has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate that Lee should be denied benefit of the '558 application. Accordingly,
van Engelen preliminary motion 8 is denied.
Lee preliminary motion 6 and Van Engelen preliminưa motions 10, 11, and 12
An issue in this interference that has generated several preliminary motions, is based on
an alleged error in van Engelen claim 12. Van Engelen claim 12, with the alleged error
underlined, is as follows:
12. A lithographic device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the mask holder is
displaceable perpendicularly to the Z-direction by means of said positioning device as
claimed in wherein the first frame of the positioning device of the mask holder belongs to
the machine frame of the lithographic device, while the second frame of the positioning
device of the mask holder belongs to the force frame of the lithographic device.
Lee seeks judgment against van Engelen on the basis that van Engelen claim 12 is
indefinite under 3 5 U. S.C. § 112, 12. Van Engelen filed a responsive miscellaneous motion 10
for entry of a certificate of correction, to correct the indefiniteness of its claim 12. Van Engelen
also filed a preliminary motion I I seeking to add to the interference a reissue application, in the
-26-
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007