a written description or an enabling disclosure. We grant this motion with respect to written
description and deny it with respect to enabling disclosure.
2. Sandhu Preliminary Motion 3 (Paper 70) attacking the benefit dates accorded
Leung in the Notice declaring interference. We dismiss this motion as moot.
3. Sandhu Preliminary Motion 4 (Paper 71) seeking to undesignate certain Sandhu
claims. We also dismiss this motion as moot.
4. Leung Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 74) to substitute a different count. We also
dismiss this motion as moot.
5. Leung Preliminary Motion 2 (Paper 75) to amend Leung claim 13. We also
dismiss this motion as moot.
Leung’s involved claims were added to Leung’s involved application to provoke this
interference. Those claims formed the sole basis for declaring this interference with Sandhu’s
claims. We hold that Leung’s claims are not supported by the original specification of Leung’s
involved application and introduced new matter. Since none of Leung’s involved claims are
supported by a written description, under the particular circumstances of this case, Leung lacks
standing to prosecute this interference. None of the other preliminary motions, whether or not
granted, would affect Leung’s standing and thus are moot. It is, therefore, appropriate to enter final
judgment against Leung.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Additional
findings may be present in the Analysis section of this opinion.
Background
The Parties
F 1. This interference is between Leung Application 09/128,143 (the 143 Application) and
Sandhu Patent 5,576,071.
F 2. The real party in interest of the Leung application is Applied Materials, Inc. of Santa Clara,
California. Paper 13.
F 3. The real party in interest of the Sandhu patent is Micron Technology, Inc. of Boise, Idaho.
Paper 5, assignment recorded at Reel 007227, Frame 0009.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007