Interference No. 104,007
Schmieding’s Statement of the Issues
At pages 1 and 2 of its brief, Schmieding sets forth the following issues for decision by
the Board:
1. Are corresponding claims 41-54 of McGuire and corresponding claims 1-5 and 8-16
of Schmieding unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over U.S. Patent No. 5,320,115
(‘115 patent ) to Kenna?
2. Are corresponding claims 41-54 of McGuire and corresponding claims 1-5, 8-11 and
13-16 of Schmieding unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the invention
disclosed in the ‘115 patent was shown at a trade seminar in January 1991, more than
one year prior to the parties’ common effective filing date of February 19, 1992?
3. Are corresponding claims 41-54 of McGuire and corresponding claims 1-5, 8-11 and
13-16 of Schmieding unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) because the subject
matter of the claims was invented by Robert V. Kenna prior to March 1991, the
earliest date of invention on which evidence was submitted by either party to this
interference?
4. Are corresponding claims 41-54 of McGuire and corresponding claims 1-5, 8-11 and
13-16 of Schmieding unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds
set forth above in items 1-3?
5. Is Schmieding entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses as a sanction against
McGuire for (1) maintaining this interference since September 1999 after being
presented with evidence uncovered by Schmieding establishing that the subject matter
at issue was publicly demonstrated and used at a trade seminar prior to the critical
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007