Interference No. 104,833
Page No. 15
requirements for granting priority benefit. Hazes argument is not persuasive. That the inventors
had possession of two separate embodiments (claim 5 and claim 6), does not necessarily mean
that the inventors had possession of yet a third embodiment that is a combination of the features
of the first two embodiments. Hazes has failed to direct us to where in the German application
that the inventors had contemplated a film strip that is both plastically or elastically extensible
and that exhibits an adhesion less than its cohesion, the adhesion of which disappears on
extension.
It may be that it would have been obvious, at the time of the invention, to combine the
features of the German application claim 5 with the features of the German application claim 6.
However, the question is not one of obviousness. Rather, the query is whether Hazes, at the time
of filing the German application, had possession of an enabling embodiment within the scope of
the count. Here, Hazes has failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that it should be accorded
benefit, for the purposes of priority, of its German application. Accordingly, Hazes preliminary
motion 7 is denied.
Hazes 12reliminM motion 3 to add to the interference its reissue 4pplication
Hazes seeks to add its reissue application 10/ 192,146 to the interference. Claim I of the
reissue application, from which all of the remaining claims 2-15 depend, differs from Hazes
involved claim I in that the limitation "in such a way that said hook or loop fasteners are free to
be fastened to mating loop or hook fasteners" has been removed.
As the movant, Hazes must demonstrate that the reissue claims it seeks to add to the
interference interfere-in-fact with Bries' involved claims. See Paper 1, Standing Order § 24.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007