As the moving party, the burden of proof lies with Sandhu. 37 CFR § 1.637(a). Sandhu has
failed to carry this burden and has not proved that Leung’s Claims 13, 19, 20 and 26 are not supported
by an enabling disclosure. Sandhu’s Preliminary Motion 2 with respect to lack of enabling disclosure
is denied.
The Remaining Preliminary Motions
This interference was provoked by Leung based upon claims which have be held not to be
supported by a written description. Leung has not filed a motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(2) pursuant
to § 1.633(i) to add claims to the 143 Application that were both supported by the original 143
Specification and also interfere with Sandhu’s patent claims. None of the other pending preliminary
motions will affect our decision on written description or result in the addition of claims to the 143
Application that are both supported by the original 143 Specification and interfere with Sandhu’s patent
claims. Leung, therefore, lacks standing to prosecute this interference and the other motions are
dismissed as moot.
FINAL JUDGMENT
The proceedings of an Interferences are to be conducted “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every interference.” 37 CFR § 1.601. It would be inconsistent with this
goal to continue an interference where the provoking party does not have written descriptive support
for the claims specifically added to provoke the interference. It is, therefore, appropriate to terminate
the interference with a final judgment at this time.
-40-
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007