to the moving party. Baldwin has failed to provide an explanation as to how its claims are
directed to the same patentable invention as the count. Baldwin’s conclusory statements fall
short of the requirements necessary for granting the relief requested.
Lastly, Baldwin’s submission that proposed claims 51-55 are supported by its
application, by directing us to numerous figures, and passages throughout its specification
without providing any explanation is inadequate. In essence, Baldwin asks us to sift through its
specification to try to ascertain if it has written description support for its proposed claims. We
decline the invitation. Baldwin should have explained, in the first instance, how the language in
its proposed claims 51-55 is supported by its specification. Accordingly, Baldwin preliminary
motion 1 is denied.
D. JUDGMENT
Frohlich’s preliminary statement does not allege a date that is earlier than Baldwin’s 6
September 1996 effective filing date. Counsel for Frohlich, during the hearing on preliminary
motions conceded priority on behalf of Frohlich, provided that its miscellaneous motion 1 was
denied. Frohlich miscellaneous motion 1 is denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that judgment as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at 5), the sole count in the interference,
is awarded against junior party SIGURD FROHLICH and HANS JOCHEN KOELLNER.
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party SIGURD FROHLICH and HANS JOCHEN
KOELLNER is not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-20, 23-29, 31 and 32
(corresponding to Count 1) of patent 5,884,006;
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to claims 20-26, 28, 29, 40, 44-46, 48 and 49
corresponding to Count 1 is awarded against senior party WAYNE D. BALDWIN and FUJIO
- 25 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007