(3) Heid Claims 24-26 requires that treatment containers be provided with
removable covers and include a removal device to remove the before the
specimen holder is put into the treatment container.
(4) Heid Claims 30-32 require a transport unit “designed to cover said treatment
stations.”
F 14. The motion relies on the joint testimony of Hans Heid and Helmut Goldbecker (the
witnesses). Heid Exhibits (HX) 1001 and 1005.
F 15. The witnesses confirm that the above limitations are not present in Stiller’s claims. HX 1001,
¶¶ 3-17.
F 16. The witnesses also testify that none of the references of record during the prosecution of the
involved Heid patent or the Stiller application and the references cited in Patent 6,444,170
which issued from a C-I-P of the involved Heid patent, teach these differences. HX 1005,
¶¶ 20-22.
F 17. The witnesses further testify that they are unaware of any other prior art that teach the
differences and that the differences are not routine or conventional practices in the art. HX
1005, ¶ 23.
F 18. The subject matter of Stiller’s involved claims does not anticipate any of Heid’s involved
claims.
ANALYSIS
The interference rules define an "interference-in-fact" as follows (37 CFR § 1.601(j), emphasis
added):
An interference-in-fact exists when at least one claim of a party that
is designated to correspond to a count and at least one claim of an opponent
that is designated to correspond to the count define the same patentable
invention.
The rules also define "same patentable invention" (37 CFR § 1.601(n)):
Invention "A" is the same patentable invention as an invention "B" when
invention "A" is the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103)
in view of invention "B" assuming invention "B" is prior art with respect to
invention "A".
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007