F 7. The count of the interference is
Count 1
A transport device for specimen holders said transport device comprising
a vertical guide,
a receiving device and
a unit movably arranged at said transport device,
wherein said receiving device is designed to pick up said specimen holders,
wherein said unit is brought under said specimen holders
during transport of said specimen holders and
wherein said receiving device and said unit are vertically movably guided,
independently of each other, on said vertical guide.
F 8. The claims of the parties are:
Stiller: 9-16
Heid: 1-36
F 9. The claims of the parties which correspond to Count 1 are:
Stiller: 9-14
Heid: 1-3, 18, 20, 24-26, 30-32
F 10. The claims of the parties which do not correspond to Count 1, and therefore are not involved
in the interference, are:
Stiller: 15-16
Heid: 4-17, 19, 21-23, 27-29, 33-36
F 11. The parties’ jointly move for a holding that no interference-in-fact exists between any of the
parties’ involved claims. Papers 36 and 40.
F 12. None of Heid’s designated claims are identical to any of Stiller’s designated claims.
F 13. A comparison of Heid’s with Stiller’s claims show the following differences:
(1) Heid Claims 1-3 require that the unit of the transport device positioned under
the specimen holders, “to contact said specimen holders when said specimen
holders are transported.”
(2) Heid Claims 18 and 20 require a receiving device and unit that are “vertically
movably guided, independently of each other, on [a] vertical guide.”
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007