Ex Parte HAZES - Page 11





                                                                                Interference No. 104,833               
                                                                                            Page No. 11                
                          between said adhesive film strip and said substrate, the improvement which                   
                          comprises employing as said adhesive film strip the adhesive film strip according            
                          to count 3 [claim 82].                                                                       
                   Bries argues, supported by evidence, that the elimination of the ratio of the film                  
            exhibiting a reaction of stripping force to tear load of at least 1: 1.5, does not render its proposed     
            count 3, or proposed claims unpatentable, since the ratio was well known at the time of the                
            invention (Paper 25 at 12). Bries argues, with supporting evidence, that it is the combination of          
            the film strip composite and the hook or loop fasteners, without the ratio, which renders the              
            count patentable over the prior art of record.                                                             
                   Hazes arguments in its oppositions 1 and 2 are essentially identical. Hazes does not                
            challenge the patentability of the proposed counts or proposed Bries claims. Rather, Hazes                 
            argues that Bries failed to provide a suitable reason for substituting the counts (adding claims 82        
            85). However, Bries does give a reason for substituting counts I and 2 with proposed counts 3              
            and 4, and adding claims 82-85. As Bries points out in its motion, the Administrative Patent               
            Judge (APJ) assigned to the interference, raised the issue of whether Bries had support for the            
            ratio limitation of its involved claim 68, which is similarly contained in count 1. We understand          
            from Bries' motions that Bries proposes to amend the counts and its claims by taking out the               
            ratio, so as to avoid the question of patentability of the count and claims to Bries. Accordingly,         
            Bries' position is clear. Hazes argues that changing the counts and claims as proposed, e.g., by           
            eliminating the ratio so that the counts and claims are patentable to Bries, is not [an acceptable         
            reason] for changing the counts and claims, since Bries admits that the scope of the counts and            
            claims do not change. The argument is not persuasive. Hazes has failed to sufficiently                     









Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007