Interference No. 104,007
McGuire Motion to Suppress Exhibits and Testimony
(Paper No. 80, filed December 13, 2000)
According to McGuire, the exhibits and testimony complained of are directed to the issue
of patentability of its claims over the ‘115 patent. Whereas we will not consider that issue for
the reason given above, McGuire’s motion to suppress is dismissed as moot.
Schmieding’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
(Paper No. 76, filed November 13, 2000)
In its opposition to this motion (Paper No. 81, filed December 13, 2000), the party
McGuire asserts that it intends to rely on the subject evidence solely to oppose the belated
preliminary motion for judgment that Schmieding filed after the close of testimony (Paper
No. 45). This motion of Schmieding to suppress evidence is dismissed as moot because the
belated preliminary motion stands dismissed, above.
Schmieding’s Motion for Sanctions
(Item IV, Paper No. 63, filed August 21, 2000)
Schmieding argues to the effect that the continued proceedings in this interference on the
issue of priority have been unnecessary and wasteful since it has been long known that neither
party is entitled to a patent on the claims corresponding to the count. Schmieding’s position is
based on the issues raised by it of unpatentability of McGuire’s involved claims under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 (b), 102(e) and 102(g). Schmieding submits that an award under 37 CFR § 1.616 of
compensatory attorney fees and expenses incurred by Schmieding since September 1999 is
appropriate.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007