Paper 104, p. 15.
F 10. When the 143 Application was filed it was characterized by Leung as a “continuation.”
Application 09/128,143, Paper 5, Attachment, p. 1.
F 11. A patent examiner objected to this characterization, asserting that the 143 Application was
a continuation-in-part:
Applicant[s’] have incorrectly called this application a continuation of
08/969,377, because the specification is NOT a true copy of that application’s
specification. Consequently, appropriate papers to indicate that this
application is a CIP of the previous application is needed.
Application 09/128,143, Paper 6, p. 2.
F 12. After further prosecution, Leung filed an amendment designating the 143 Application to be
a continuation-in-part, “to expedite prosecution.” Paper 15, p. 2.
F 13. Thus, the 143 Application is currently characterized as a “continuation-in-part.” of the parent
application. Application 09/128,143, Paper 15, p. 2.
F 14. The parent application is said to be a continuation of the grandparent application. Application
08/969,377, Paper 15, p. 1.
F 15. The grandparent application is said to be a continuation-in-part of the great-grandparent
application. Application 08/969,377, Paper 15, p. 2.
F 16. As originally filed, the 143 Specification included 12 claims. Application 09/128,143,
Specification, pp. 18-19.
F 17. A preliminary amendment cancelled all claims and added Claims 13-28 and requested an
interference with the Sandhu patent. Application 09/128,143, Paper 4, pp. 1-5.
F 18. In the preliminary amendment, Leung noted that Leung Claims 13 and 20, the only
independent claims, were “substantially copied Sandhu claims 27 and 28.” Application
09/128,143, Paper 4, p. 6.
The Sandhu Patent
F 19. The Sandhu patent issued from Application 08/336,260 filed 8 November 1994. Patent
5,576,071, p. 1, col. 1.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007