Interference No. 104,007
Schmieding’s Motion to Redefine the Interference
under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(4) (Paper No. 9, filed February 2, 1998)
This motion to redefine the interference by designating Schmieding claims 11-16 as not
corresponding to the count is not included in the statement of the issues appearing at pages 1
and 2 of the Schmieding brief as required under 37 CFR § 1.656(b)(4), and the issue is not
otherwise raised in the brief. Consequently, the motion is considered as abandoned by
Schmieding and it is dismissed. Irikura v. Peterson, 18 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 n.6 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1990); Chai v. Frame, 10 USPQ2d 1460, 1461 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989); Photis v.
Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984).
McGuire Motion to Redefine the Interfering Subject Matter
(Paper No. 51, filed August 4, 2000)
The subject matter of this motion, to add proposed counts 2 and 3, is not included as an
issue in McGuire’s statement of the issues at pages 1 and 2 of its brief as required under 37 CFR
§ 1.656(b)(4) and the issue is not otherwise raised in the brief. Consequently, the motion is
considered as abandoned by McGuire, and it is dismissed. Irikura v. Peterson, 18 USPQ2d
at 1365 n.6; Chai v. Frame, 10 USPQ2d at 1461 n.1; Photis v. Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ at 950.
Furthermore, the motion is contingent upon the granting of the motion of Schmieding
under 37 CFR § 1.635 (Paper No. 44) for consideration of its belated motion for judgment under
37 CFR § 1.633(a). Whereas the Rule 635 motion is denied, below, McGuire’s motion to
redefine the interfering subject matter is also dismissed because the contingency upon which it is
based has not occurred.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007