Interference No. 105,113
(a) U.S. Application 09/386,734, filed 31 August 1999;
(b) PCT/US/02504, filed 4 February 1999;
(c) U.S. Provisional Application 60/087,432, filed 1 June 1998; and
(d) U.S. Application 09/018,783, filed 4 February 1998.
The specifications and drawings of the '734 and PCT applications are identical to those of
Ritzdorf's involved '613 application15 and thus provide written description support for Count 1
for the same reasons that the '613 application provides written description support for Ritzdorf's
claim 70. Accordingly, Preliminary Motion 1 is denied with respect to the '734 application and
the PCT application. "If a party is entitled to rely on an earlier filed application and the
specification of that application shows a constructive reduction to practice of the count, no
further evidence is needed to prove invention as of the filing date of that application." Stevens v.
Tamai, No. 03-1479, slip op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2004) (citing Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d
1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Apart from lacking claims and having different pagination, the provisional application
appears to be identical to the involved application, including the above-discussed dashed lines in
Figure 11. Preliminary Motion 1 is therefore also denied with respect to the provisional
application.
15 The '613 application at 1, amendment insert A1, identifies itself as a continuation of the
'734 application, which at 1, amendment insert C1, identifies itself as a continuation of the PCT
application.
- 29 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007