Interference No. 104,833
Page No. 17
combination with 3M's statement is sufficient in this particular case to demonstrate that there is
an interference-in-fact between Hazes reissue claim I and Bries added claim 82. Accordingly,
Hazes preliminary motion 3 is granted. Hazes reissue application 10/ 192,146 is added to the
interference.
The remaining preliminary motions
Hazes has filed a preliminary motion 5 to substitute a single count 3 for original counts I
and 2. Hazes' proposed count 3 is original count I or count 2. Hazes proposed count 3 is similar
to the count 3 adopted, except that the adopted count 3 eliminates the ratio limitations. For the
reasons discussed supra, in connection with Bries' preliminary motion 1, we have adopted count
3 in which the ratio is eliminated and a single count is adopted, and thus have addressed Hazes
arguments with respect to Hazes preliminary motion 5. Accordingly, that portion of Hazes
preliminary motion 5 seeking to substitute its count 3 is denied.
Contingent upon adding its reissue application to the interference, Hazes alternatively
moves for its proposed count 4. The proposed count 4 is the reissue application claim I or
reissue application claim 11. The proposed count 4, like reissue application claim 1, eliminates
the limitation "in such a way that said hook or loop fasteners are free to be fastened to mating
loop or hook fasteners." Bries, through its preliminary motion 3, proposes to adopt counts 5 and
6 for counts I and 2, contingent upon the adding of Hazes reissue application to the interference.
Bries' proposed count 5 is similar to Hazes reissue claim 1, in that it eliminates the limitation "in
such a way that said hook or loop fasteners are free to be fastened to mating loop or hook
fasteners." Bries' proposed count 5 also eliminates the ratio from the reissue claim 1. Hazes
I
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007